kicked out!

[OBW]

Everything that is being said about the LRC's group-think, group-speak, doctrine control, etc., is true.

But the event that sparked this thread is as it should have been — even for a fellowship that we all like and respect.

I'm not saying that there is not a problem with everything that has gone on. I'm saying that the bare fact of being ousted is not the problem. It should have been expected of any group.

If you start causing factions, then you are to be marked out. You are not to be allowed to teach. If you start to cause factions, then you have no business being among the group. You are openly standing against them. Why should it be permitted to be from within their midst?

Their doctrines and practices are worthy of serious scrutiny. Too bad you got called-out for doing just that. But unless we want to declare that their lampstand has been removed, what they did about it was not actually an error. The underlying things that caused J73 to speak out about it are the errors.

Sort of a technical whipsaw. They have serious errors. You can't speak to them about them because they won't listen. You can't talk to anyone else because they won't tolerate it. So the only real choice is what they claim to hate — division. In this case a form of separation from some of the worst division in the past 100 years.

Be thankful. Be very thankful.

Having said that, surrounding that is a lot of problem for the LRC. They hold their nonessentials so strongly that even admitting to thinking differently is a problem for them. If they kick you out for that, it is not supportable. It is not supportable to kick people out for asking questions.

But if you go outside and speak against the group, they have identified that you are not truly part of the group and to allow you to come among them as if you are a part is a farce. So the reason given is sufficient.

And, while you can argue that there was not a trial, technically, that is laying a requirement of American jurisprudence onto the process.

Argue that they didn't first come and tell you your fault and allow you to repent. Was there ever any thought that it was not a fault in their eyes? Yet the actions persisted. We are grasping at straws on that one.

And posting the contents of the letter solidified that you are the one they intended. They clearly got the message to the right person because that person had their message to make public on the forum.

Rejoice.

And return to the discussion of what is behind their errors. The things they do right are not what we should gripe about.

[james73]

Originally Posted by OBW

But the event that sparked this thread is as it should have been — even for a fellowship that we all like and respect.

I'm not saying that there is not a problem with everything that has gone on. I'm saying that the bare fact of being ousted is not the problem. It should have been expected of any group.

...

But if you go outside and speak against the group, they have identified that you are not truly part of the group and to allow you to come among them as if you are a part is a farce. So the reason given is sufficient.

...

And, while you can argue that there was not a trial, technically, that is laying a requirement of American jurisprudence onto the process.

Rejoice.

And return to the discussion of what is behind their errors. The things they do right are not what we should gripe about.

Well I disagree. What have they done right? I am not laying American jurisprudence on the church at all - there is Matthew 18:15. If there is a disagreement, if a brother sins against you, first tell one, then tell a couple, then tell the whole church. If they don't like something I did, they can follow Jesus' words - first tell me, then a couple, then the church and then, if I do not see the error, they can treat me as a tax collector or Gentile. They jumped straight to "tax collector".

Anyway I don't blame them, they are only human. But exclusion is a serious matter in the church, it is one of Witness Lee's own six tests for a genuine local church.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by james73

If they don't like something I did, they can follow Jesus' words - first tell me, then a couple, then the church and then, if I do not see the error, they can treat me as a tax collector or Gentile. They jumped straight to "tax collector".

Anyway I don't blame them, they are only human.

I think many will agree the local churches is not conventional Christianity. When dealing with the leadership locally and extra-locally, most decision making is based on feeling. This feeling often refers to The True of Life as the source. To be rational, reasonable, investigative, and fact-finding brothers is often referred to as eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Thus brothers do not need to know or do not want to know anything.

Yet in Paul's first letter to Timothy, Paul wrote "doing nothing in a spirit of partiality". Further in Paul's letter to Titus, Paul wrote "but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled,". Titus 1:8
From James 1:19, "This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;"

You may wonder why did I include James 1:19? Because the nature of many brothers in the lead lack objectivity. Orientation with their localities and Living Stream Ministry is very much subjective. As a result they are slow to hear and quick to anger. This explains to some degree at the beginning of my post when I said many decision making is feeling based (subjective) and why to research information (objective) is discouraged.

I wish for more objectivity and impartiality but, as James says, they are only human.

[Paul Cox]

Well, James, the Local Church is a little fantasy land. King Lee has died, but all the kings men are running a tight ship. In their fantasy land they use grandiose terms like, "APOSTLE OF THE AGE," "GOD'S MOVE ON THE EARTH," "GOD'S DEPUTY AUTHORITY." They have (we were) brainwashed to believe all this nonsense. The more insular they can keep the group, the more success they will have at keeping the brainwashing going on.

They can't afford to have light shone into their midst. Yes, consider yourself blessed to be done with that nonsense. They think they have spoken with authority. But their authority is an authority of straw. Good riddance.

Now you can start to have real fellowship with the Body of Christ. Those people have become Jehovah's Witnesses who happen to believe in the Trinity.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by james73

Well I disagree. What have they done right? I am not laying American jurisprudence on the church at all - there is Matthew 18:15. If there is a disagreement, if a brother sins against you, first tell one, then tell a couple, then tell the whole church. If they don't like something I did, they can follow Jesus' words - first tell me, then a couple, then the church and then, if I do not see the error, they can treat me as a tax collector or Gentile. They jumped straight to "tax collector".

Anyway I don't blame them, they are only human. But exclusion is a serious matter in the church, it is one of Witness Lee's own six tests for a genuine local church.

And in that regard you have them right where they cannot allow such a thing to happen.

But tell me, if they had actually gone through the whole thing, how would it have played out?

"We note that you have been writing things on the internet about us. Things that you should have first come to us about. That you should have confronted us as being an offense. Then we could respond. BTW, you are James73, are you not?"

At this point, you can only agree that you are or there are more serious problems.

"Are you going to repent from this error and stop doing it?"

Interesting problem. Will you repent and stop? I sort of doubt it.

"Since you assert that you will not cease in this action and you continue to spread lies concerning Witness Lee and the Local Churches, you are hereby excluded from our fellowship."

Oh, it is very clear that they simply bypassed the Matthew 18 process. But was the outcome unexpected even if followed?

And since their charge is related to speaking lies concerning Lee and the churches, it is clearly not going to be some public event in which your "lies" will either be listed or otherwise put out for the rest of the people to hear. So it is going to be private.

It appears that you have equally bypassed any attempt at "fellowship" concerning the "problems" and are equally at fault.

Now, before you think I am blaming you, I am not. But in the grand scheme of things, most of what we do here on this forum is arguably in opposition to Matthew 18. At least if you assert that it applies to every possible disagreement with all other Christians, at all times, and in all ways.

What I am saying is that it is not entirely obvious that Matt 18 is written for this kind of issue. Many will disagree. But simply saying that it applies to everything does not make it so. Its own words and those of scripture suggest something different.

Our tendency to take everything written in scripture and declare it to be the only way with respect to all things. But much of it is more specific and contextual than that. We like to make Matthew 18 into a general prescription concerning all disputes of all kinds, but it is not stated as such.

It says if "you" note that your brother or sister sins, point it out to them. If they will not hear you, take along one or two more to establish the facts. If they won't hear it then, take it to the church. If they won't hear the church, "treat them as you would a pagan or tax collector." (I should say here that I cannot determine who it is that is supposed to take this position — the church or the person who sees the problem. I can make an argument either way.)

Yet when Paul wrote to Timothy concerning bad teachers, he simply said to refuse them. He didn't say to tell them, then if they don't listen, to take it to the church. He said to refuse them. Surely he did not consider Timothy to stand as the church.

So, if it is the church leadership that has noted you doing something that may not actually be sin, but that is a willful misspeaking (in their opinion) concerning things that they consider "truth," are they limited like the "you" in Matthew, or are they standing in the position of Timothy with respect to trouble in the church?

Unless we are ready to have a serious problem with Paul (and therefore the inerrancy issue that has recently died down) it is not so simple as to drag out Matthew 18 every time something of "discipline" occurs. Matt 18 clearly applies to sin. Paul seems to have used something like Matt 18 (or was the last step in that process) when he advised the Corinthians to exclude the sinning brother. But he does not even suggest such a thing when he tells Timothy to silence certain teachers.

Now there has been some controversy as to whether the silencing of certain teachers was coupled with some kind of expulsion. It is not clear. Some say "yes" while others say "no."

- - - -

And having said all of that, please note that I do not defend the LRC, per se, but note that we may be fighting the wrong battle in this case. Surely they are one of the worst examples of any kind of righteousness when it comes to their stances and how that plays out with their members. Despite the generally poor advice to label them as a cult, there is a side in which the church community as a whole is treating the LRC according to Matthew 18. Unlike the LRC, much of the rest of Christianity operates with much more charity concerning the large variety of groups and differences of opinion on things. But they stop when it comes to "playing nice" with the ones who sue over characterizations of their doctrines (borderline heresy) and practices (actually quite cultic in many cases). The LRC does not respond to attempts at discussion. They simply shut of conversation and call their lawyers.

So they get excluded. Treated as pagans and tax collectors. (I kind of like the idea that labeling something as being like the IRS is a sort of curse.)

[Cal]

I think what OBW is getting at is that every local group has the right to manage its membership as it sees fit, within the parameters of the Word. James' LRC group had the right, in the broad sense, to decide to part ways with him.

I would add that every individual also has the right to leave a local group and shake the dust off his feet, again within the parameters of the Word. James also had the right to part ways with the LRC group he was in.

(The LRC basically denied the second right existed. This is one of their major errors. Of course, they would never physically restrict a member from leaving. But they would most definitely tell members that to leave the LRC is to go against God, which may be worse.)

But in both cases what is "within the parameters of the Word" is up for debate. It is not entirely clear where the edges of the right of free association cross over into the edges of obligated association. Just where these edges meet is something we've discussed many times. And it is clear will never all agree on it--which tells me the general principles of seeking peace and wishing Godspeed should prevail above all.

Which one "did right" is a matter of interpretation and conscience. Thankfully, there are plenty of places to meet if somebody doesn't like you, and plenty of fish in the sea if you are looking for members to put up with your group's rarified requirements.

[james73]

Originally Posted by OBW

- - - -

And having said all of that, please note that I do not defend the LRC, per se, but note that we may be fighting the wrong battle in this case. Surely they are one of the worst examples of any kind of righteousness when it comes to their stances and how that plays out with their members. Despite the generally poor advice to label them as a cult, there is a side in which the church community as a whole is treating the LRC according to Matthew 18. Unlike the LRC, much of the rest of Christianity operates with much more charity concerning the large variety of groups and differences of opinion on things. But they stop when it comes to "playing nice" with the ones who sue over characterizations of their doctrines (borderline heresy) and practices (actually quite cultic in many cases). The LRC does not respond to attempts at discussion. They simply shut of conversation and call their lawyers.

So they get excluded. Treated as pagans and tax collectors. (I kind of like the idea that labeling something as being like the IRS is a sort of curse.)

Yes, and I'm sorry if I got a little defensive. For British, being excluded from a group is the worst punishment... and without a fair hearing too, a chap gets agitated. I'm also hearing bad things on the grapevine, apparently I am emotionally unstable. This is an infuriating allegation to hear about oneself.

Igzy is right to bring up obligated association, this is probably the key to the upset for me. Despite being quite cynical and disbelieving of the LSM hype, I HAD fallen into the trap of believing, subconsciously, that it was the "only church". It's hard to shake that off. Surprising how deep that nonsense had gotten past my usually ferocious journalistic defenses... even while consciously rejecting it, part of me had accepted it.

Well it's time to take a break, it's emotionally draining. Hearing bad things about myself from mutual acquaintances has proved especially tough, especially where the mutual acquaintances hold absolute faith in the brother telling them the bad things. They are not asking "are you OK?" they are saying "Gosh I heard you had an emotional breakdown, you should seek professional help"... deep breaths... that's why they are mutual acquaintances, not mutual friends.

Maybe close this thread, it's probably too negative. We all have better things to do, right? But, as one at the church accused me of always needing to have the last word, let's keep it open in case anyone else wants to comment a little while longer...

Peace!

James73 wrote: Anyway I don't blame them, they are only human.
When have they stopped the standing up one by one to declare :'I am god' ?
Jesus our savior, the great shepherd, has rescued you. Now you can pray in spirit and in truth. Rejoice.

[Lisbon]

Any leading one (and I am not) heard WL speak for a full hour on there being essentially no grounds for excomunication. Dozens of messages given on the organic aspect of the church. Surely it's inconceivable that with such a teaching you can go out and shoot a toe, ear, or finger off the body with little regard. We're just crazy.
davinci

[aron]

Originally Posted by Leo

Dozens of messages given on the organic aspect of the church. Surely it's inconceivable that with such a teaching you can go out and shoot a toe, ear, or finger off the body with little regard.

I remember hearing RK say, "We have to cut off the churches to save the body". Like the village of Ben Tre in Vietnam: "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it".

The only thing the ministry cares about is the ministry. It doesn't care about the saints, the churches, or the Word. It says it does (appearance of reality is integral to its survival), but when push comes to shove its all about one thing: the ministry.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Any leading one (and I am not) heard WL speak for a full hour on there being essentially no grounds for excomunication. Dozens of messages given on the organic aspect of the church. Surely it's inconceivable that with such a teaching you can go out and shoot a toe, ear, or finger off the body with little regard. We're just crazy.
davinci

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul points out how every member of the Body is essential. However the LSM/LC makes it evident through the practice of quarantines, they are in contrast to the apostles teaching. If you have a brother or sister who's a troublesome finger, toe, or ear in the Body, amputation is the prescribed method to rid themselves of that Member. How many brothers and sisters can you name who were cut off? That's not what Paul's 1st epistle to Corinth says.

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Any leading one (and I am not) heard WL speak for a full hour on there being essentially no grounds for excomunication. Dozens of messages given on the organic aspect of the church. Surely it's inconceivable that with such a teaching you can go out and shoot a toe, ear, or finger off the body with little regard. We're just crazy.
davinci

Regarding "no grounds for excommunication" . . . . maybe he was thinking about his own family members, Nee, and/or himself.

[OBW]

And I was never suggesting that the LRC was "pearly white" in what they did. That is often the problem that we all get into when we start discussing these kinds of issues. Including me. Even when I try to be specific about what I am referring to, I fail, or use words that extend what I mean to something that I don't mean.

It is very clear that their "right" (even scripturally) to moderate their membership is only technically as broad as I have stated it. It is much more completely true if they begin with a real, up-front process of discussion. Even one that truly allows for some independence of thought. Then, when the sense that someone is taking actions and saying things that is excessively partisan or even divisive, they can be more up front and honest about it and do what they need to do.

As it is, they skip everything else. The refuse to even hear alternate thoughts on things. Despite rhetoric I heard in my early years in the LRC (mid-70s), they essentially tolerate no variation in belief of any kind. They now must all be on the same page on everything. Saying otherwise out loud is an invitation for the door.

It should not be that simple. But even if I point to Paul's writings to Timothy rather than those of Jesus recorded in Matthew 18 (and accepting that they are not talking about the same thing), it is not clear that Paul said to kick anyone out. Just to refuse them the place to teach.

Not clear terminology. And I know of a situation where I have attended where there was some divisive rumblings from the wife of someone who either was, or had been, an elder. The solution was a request to just move on down the street to some group that she didn't want to fight with.

Not perfect, but you keep open dissent out of the community. They are not excommunicated. And they can return. But hopefully without the open dissent and factiousness. No one is looking for them at the doors to keep hem out.

[OBW]

I kept thinking about that old thing about not really being able to excommunicate anyone.

And suddenly the light went on.

They don't excommunicate!! They quarantine!! It is supposedly curable. But I have never seen such a thing.

As the sheep were gullibly taught to chant toward the end of Animal Farm: Four legs good! Two legs better!!

The cure isn't to not excommunicate anyone. It is to rename the process so that it is never said to have happened.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by james73

Yes, and I'm sorry if I got a little defensive. For British, being excluded from a group is the worst punishment... and without a fair hearing too, a chap gets agitated. I'm also hearing bad things on the grapevine, apparently I am emotionally unstable. This is an infuriating allegation to hear about oneself.

This is typical. Anyone who dares to speak anything not in lock step with the status quo as dictated by the Anaheim Politburo is classified as: emotionally unstable or has a personal problem or is ambitious for position or...? The list goes on and on and on. They are a closed system and simply can't handle any critique whatsoever i.e. spiritual infants.

Originally Posted by james73

Igzy is right to bring up obligated association, this is probably the key to the upset for me. Despite being quite cynical and disbelieving of the LSM hype, I HAD fallen into the trap of believing, subconsciously, that it was the "only church". It's hard to shake that off. Surprising how deep that nonsense had gotten past my usually ferocious journalistic defenses... even while consciously rejecting it, part of me had accepted it.

This is good news! They are not the only true church. That is just a fable they tell themselves. And the better news is I have never been in any other church that does not accept constructive honest critique as part and parcel of their every day community life. People walk out of Sunday morning meetings discussing the good and bad of the message they just heard. What they think about it, etc. It's no big deal. It's normal. Nobody is threatened by it. Blind acceptance and loyalty is not expected nor given.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by james73

Well I disagree. What have they done right? I am not laying American jurisprudence on the church at all - there is Matthew 18:15.

Back during the quarantines of 2006, I read most of LSM's arguments on "afaithfulword.com" trying to ascertain their justifications. Since they no longer clung to scripture as their divine "standard," as Nee's famous quote instructs, we must honestly ask "what is right?" What defines our actions? What decides? How do we "cut straight?"

The Great Lakes Area and LSM battled for several years over this same matter. Both sides, instead of looking to scripture, went to Lee's writings for definition. Both sides compiled their "ammunition" from Lee's voluminous writings. The conclusion was apparent -- older Lee (Anaheim) differed from younger Lee (Cleveland.)

There you have it. Nee says look to scripture. Neither side accepted that. They looked to Lee's writings. But the old stuff contradicts the new stuff. Both sides claimed that they knew "the real Lee." Once we leave the Bible, how can we ever know "what is right?" We have already left the "solid rock" and both sides are now on sinking sand.

Several years age, the Anderson family (Book -- Thread of Gold) attempted to apply these verses from Matt. 18. They wrote letters. Long letters. This forum archives the whole history. Families suffered in the LC. Numerous letters written. Real tragedies. They got no where. Great verses, for sure, but just a waste of time. Once leaders leave the scripture as our "standard," there is no way to "fellowship."

OBW highlights this. LSM can turn any complaint upside down. They are masters at this. Inside their little "society" they make all the rules.