Subtle Issues of Right and Wrong During the late 80s Rebellion

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

Since there is no way for there to be a forum within the local assembly to be listened to, one recourse of action is coming to this internet forum.

I've heard a present LRCer complain of this very thing. There is no forum in which you can even ask a question.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I've heard a present LRCer complain of this very thing. There is no forum in which you can even ask a question.

Whine, whine...

Here's one : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/localchurch/

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Whine, whine...

Here's one : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/localchurch/

Can you actually ask a question and get a real answer? Or are you simply protected from excommunication because they can't find you?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Can you actually ask a question and get a real answer? Or are you simply protected from excommunication because they can't find you?

I was excommunicated from that Yahoo Group, when I revealed I was an exLCer. Got Kangas involved, and even he couldn't do anything about it, so he claimed.

I shared what I went thru with Mel Porter, and that was it...banned from the group, without a warning. One of the moderators, a Chinese brother, contacted me and said if he had gone thru what I went thru he'd leave the LC too. And he put me back on the forum. But another moderator kicked me off again.

Contacted Kangas about it. He said he'd look into it. Then told me that he couldn't override the moderators. Yeah right.

But it is a pro-local church forum.... And you can ask questions. Just be careful.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

I've heard a present LRCer complain of this very thing. There is no forum in which you can even ask a question.

Much more spiritual to just stare at each other...

[Indiana]

Last year I received a few emails from an LC brother from California who had a question for me. Below are three paragraphs from his first letter.

Greetings brother Steve,

I just read your history of the local churches. Much of it I was aware of as I first came to the church in 1978 and had lived through a great deal of it. Some of it was new, but not much. And, since I was in fellowship with what can only be described as 'both sides', I am aware of each sides points of view as regards the history of the difficulties.

Without discounting many of the legitimate concerns about LSM and the rest of the history, I have a question for you: Is not publishing such a report the same as Ham spreading an evil report about his father, Noah? Or as if David had struck down King Saul, as he surely had the right to have done? Both Noah and Saul were wrong. The blessing had even left Saul, yet David would not raise his hand against him.

Surely, Brother Lee is our spiritual father as much as Brother Nee is our grandfather. All we have received has come as a result of the ministry of Brother Lee. Yes, some serious mistakes have been made. Yes, we know all about them, and some are quite disturbing. Yet, except I had touched the recovery, I would not have received such a rich spiritual benefit for the last 30 years... it must be stated that serious mistakes have been made.... yet, I am reminded of Ham and David.

A sister then shared in response the following:
Dearest Brothers,

As I read over the exchange of emails, my heart was grieved. I paid my "dues." I was in Witness Lee's movement--and a very staunch supporter--for 20 years (in "the golden days," from 1969 to 1989), until my eyes were opened to the corruption and the truth some 20 years ago. I understood all the doctrine--including the huge, conscience-binding emphasis on the Old Testament types of Noah and David, which were developed by Watchman Nee (our "grandfather") in the book "Spiritual Authority."

What really helped me, though, was to go to the Scriptures and see that there are clear NEW TESTAMENT Scriptures (not Old Testament pictures and types (from which we are left to deduce meanings), but clear, black and white blatantly strong WORDS)which make it clear that we are NEVER, NEVER to permit sin in the leadership---no matter how "darling" or "dear" the corrupt leader may be to us (completely WITHOUT PARTIALITY):

First Timothy 5:19-22 says EMPHATICALLY (verse 21: "I CHARGE YOU BEFORE GOD and the Lord Jesus Schrist and the elect angels that you observe these things WITHOUT PREJUDICE, doing nothing with PARTIALITY"---not even with respect to your dear "father" and/or "grandfather.")

What things are we CHARGED BEFORE GOD to do WITHOUT PARTIALITY? We are charged to make ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that sinning leaders of God's flock are exposed and PUBLICLY REBUKED if they are in sin, have been approached about that sin, and have failed to repent and turn from that sin. In fact, the only clear rendering of verse 22 that I have seen is the Wuest translation. It says: "Be laying hands hastily on not even one [elder, that is, do not reinstate a sinning elder hastily], neither be a partner in others' sins."

I understand this to say that if we, through carelessness or sentimentality, allow a corrupt leader to remain or return to "authority," and they continue in sin, we ourselves become a "partner" in that sin.

God cares for the church. We old LCers know how drastically God dealt with Moses for being in authority and misrepresenting God to His people. No doubt, the demand for public exposure of sinning elders (once it is clear on the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses) is for the protection of the flock. Such men should NOT be "covered" or their sins not dealt with. Every believer is charged with impartiality to deal within the house of God for pure leadership. I, for one, would never be willing to be a part of that wicked movement---even though I know there are many dear, ignorant saints (apart from the leadership) who are blindly held hostage there.

Oh, and by the way, if you prefer Old Testament types to New Testament charges, I would like to ask about the type of Aaron, as an authority UNDER Moses, and how God dealt with Aaron and ended his life. WHY did God remove Aaron's ministry (stripping him of his priestly garments) and take away his life? Was it for the heinous sin of creating the golden calf? NO! God clearly says that the reason her was taking Aaron's life it was because "you rebelled against my word AT THE WATERS OF MERIBAH" (Num. 20:24). If you investigate the details of what Aaron "did" at the waters of Meribah, there is absolutely no mention of him having DONE anything. He was simply present and was identified, in the people's eyes, with Moses' sin. In God's words, God then spoke "to Moses AND AARON, 'Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.'" When Moses MISREPRESENTED God at the waters of Meribah, Aaron stood there and did NOTHING. In so doing, he became a "partner" of another man's sins (as we are CHARGED not to do in 1 Tim. 5;22).

The same thing happened to the man of God in 1 Kings 13. He got a clear leading from the Lord, but he was so enamored with the "stature" of the old prophet that he failed to be a Berean. He simply deferred to the "stature" of the old prophet. Unfortunately for him, God judged his deference more strongly than he judged the old prophet's deception. If Old Testament types should be that governing for our behavior, I think we need to be VERY cautious how much we defer to "delegated authorities when the Lord is speaking to us in a different way---or when that "authority" is in obvious unrighteousness or sin.

Admittedly, I was helped to get weaned from Lee when, in the early 1980's I read his deposition which was taken during the lawsuit he had initiated regarding the book, "The Mindbenders." I was in the LC at that time. I took copious notes in trainings; I had the LC church history, issues, dialogs, doctrines, etc. down like the back of my hand. I THOUGHT I had somewhat of an understanding of Lee. (He had been in our home and visited my husband, who was a business man, when Lee was trying to drum up funds for Daystar, the Lee family motor-home business that was being funded by fleecing the sheep in the name of "church service"). The man speaking in that deposition was an entirely different man. In answer after answer he perjured himself at the drop of a hat. Or, even stranger to me, he pled being an old man with a loss of memory. (All I had ever known was this "gifted" speaker who, even as a very old man, prided himself in having a clear mind and rattled off statistics, etc.) I couldn't BELIEVE what I was reading as his deposition, given under oath, under penalty of perjury! After reading it, even though I was still in the LC, I wanted to call the authorities and give them clear documentation from messages, trainings, printed matter, etc. that the things he was saying under oath directly contradicted things he had said to us a "the church." Wow! What an eye-opener!

Even today, when I hear people say that Lee was so pure, etc. and that corruption went on around him (as if it was unbeknownst to him), I can't buy into it. I'm so thankful I have a clear conscience about where I meet and with whom. No teat is so precious to me that I am willing to call evil good and good evil--at least, not at this point (I haven't been proven unto death yet). I just think there's something wrong when people say, "This thing is so GREAT, I'm willing to overlook sin and am willing to sear my conscience in order to have what I consider a 'living" church life.'"

(As our "grandfather" said in "The Normal Christian Church Life" (or, "Concerning Our Missions"): If ANY group of the Lord's people is under a single ministry, that group is automatically a SECT (obviously, this is my paraphrase---but Nee says that in his book)....

There should be an honest exposure. Those poor saints who worship Lee should know the real nature of the man. I think Steve did an incredible, much-needed service to the Body of Christ by compiling the facts regarding much of the corruption of the LC and its leadership. I just marvel that he still thinks it's worth his time to knock on the doors of those corrupt leaders---as if they really didn't know how corrupt they are and the lives that they've ruined of so many sincere saints. In that day, I believe there will be a lot of millstones around the necks of many that are being looked up to in that organization.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Without discounting many of the legitimate concerns about LSM and the rest of the history, I have a question for you: Is not publishing such a report the same as Ham spreading an evil report about his father, Noah? Or as if David had struck down King Saul, as he surely had the right to have done? Both Noah and Saul were wrong. The blessing had even left Saul, yet David would not raise his hand against him.

Surely, Brother Lee is our spiritual father as much as Brother Nee is our grandfather. All we have received has come as a result of the ministry of Brother Lee. Yes, some serious mistakes have been made. Yes, we know all about them, and some are quite disturbing. Yet, except I had touched the recovery, I would not have received such a rich spiritual benefit for the last 30 years. And it must be stated that serious mistakes have been made on BOTH sides of this situation. And yet, I am reminded of Ham and David....

Noah and Ham:
as I was raised hearing this analogy, my thought was if it was meant to be covered over, it wouldn't be in the Bible. God's Word is an exposing Word.

David and Saul:
David had opportunity to strike Saul down while he slept. Instead David gave grace to Saul.

Spiritual father:
I cannot call any man or woman my spiritual father. Matthew 23:9 explicitly says, "Do not call anyone on earth your father ; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

Brother Lee is with the Lord. He is no longer alive to speak. There are brothers, elders, co-workers who are still with us and who were party if not bystanders to bearing of false witness of certain former elders. These brothers, elders, and co-workers should have some response. This is why I have considered Indiana's writings bearing significance.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Indiana

First Timothy 5:19-22 says EMPHATICALLY (verse 21: "I CHARGE YOU BEFORE GOD and the Lord Jesus Schrist and the elect angels that you observe these things WITHOUT PREJUDICE...

This is either how the Scottish say his name, or how I say it after a couple too many shots o' whiskey...

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Indiana

What things are we CHARGED BEFORE GOD to do WITHOUT PARTIALITY? We are charged to make ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that sinning leaders of God's flock are exposed and PUBLICLY REBUKED if they are in sin, have been approached about that sin, and have failed to repent and turn from that sin. In fact, the only clear rendering of verse 22 that I have seen is the Wuest translation. It says: "Be laying hands hastily on not even one [elder, that is, do not reinstate a sinning elder hastily], neither be a partner in others' sins."

I understand this to say that if we, through carelessness or sentimentality, allow a corrupt leader to remain or return to "authority," and they continue in sin, we ourselves become a "partner" in that sin.

I had the impression that "laying hands on hastily" referred to, shall we say, being too quick to get someone in trouble? Sort of the opposite of "reinstating" someone.

Originally Posted by Indiana

God cares for the church. We old LCers know how drastically God dealt with Moses for being in authority and misrepresenting God to His people. No doubt, the demand for public exposure of sinning elders (once it is clear on the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses) is for the protection of the flock. Such men should NOT be "covered" or their sins not dealt with. Every believer is charged with impartiality to deal within the house of God for pure leadership. I, for one, would never be willing to be a part of that wicked movement---even though I know there are many dear, ignorant saints (apart from the leadership) who are blindly held hostage there.

Yes, there are many who are unaware of the things that went on.

But I always have this nagging reminder of all those folks (not in the leadership) who do know, who plow ahead as committed as ever, if not more committed than before.

What do we make of that?

[rayliotta]

Sorry to post again, but this whole thing really boils down to this --

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Indiana

However you slice it, there is no escaping this fact -- some brothers have left us and started another, separate group. Some on our side are against your side. Some on your side are against our side. This is division. There is no other word for it. No matter how many good, solid, correct and utterly righteous reasons there may have been for it, some have formed a division. Above EVERY other sin, division is the worst! This you already know to be true. And we both have allowed our leaders to commit division. We cannot stand with them in this matter.

This paragraph, within the context of a larger letter, expresses well the bondage WL placed us in. He identified so-called "division" as the worst sin of all. What a prison of fear to hold all the members of the LC! And I should add this is exactly the same indictment leveled by Rome against all the Reformers.

There is no way that we can honor the man of God, Martin Luther, for his mighty work of faith, and then condemn John Ingalls for the same actions. Both brothers acted for conscience' sake, in obedience to the word of God, against the perceived evils of their day. They left an aberrant and deteriorating system, and subsequently met with other like-minded believers. Both were condemned with starting a division.

The greatest division is to create a system which separates God from His people. To leave that system, with the goal of returning to the Lord and His word, cannot be condemned as a "division," any more than the Reformation could be. Why cannot those who leave the Recovery meet with other believers? WHY does LSM condemn them for simply following their conscience? Why does LSM demand that these ones live forever in isolation? Why does LSM continually distort the real reasons these ones have left?

These are the real questions we should be addressing.

[ZNPaaneah]

This reminds me of Hebrews where they were "for all their life held in bondage in fear of death".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There is no way that we can honor the man of God, Martin Luther, for his mighty work of faith, and then condemn John Ingalls for the same actions. Both brothers acted for conscience' sake, in obedience to the word of God, against the perceived evils of their day.

Martin Luther with the RCC and John Ingalls with LSM, how can these brothers reconcile what was expected from the system of their time and their conscience?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Indiana

The more you write, the more you solidify yourself and others into division. Again, as I stated above, you have been an excellent scribe in recording much of the truth of what has happened among us. And I do not question the accuracy of your reporting or of your love of the Lord, the saints, the Word, or matters of the divine truth. But I feel that your writings are on the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The fact that you are correct in the details and facts only shows that you are on some of the so-called 'good' branches' of the evil tree. Being 'right' does not mean being in life. This is a hard lesson but I have learned the truth of it in my over 30 years in the church.

While I do appreciate the kind attitude displayed towards Steve Isitt, these concepts are troublesome. Steve has been documenting the brief history of the so-called Recovery in America. His goal is to preserve the facts of history to positively effect the many members in the LC's. To relegate his work to "the tree of knowledge," is in principle the same as eliminating half of the Old Testament. How many millions of Bible readers have read of David's sins with Bathsheeba? How much better would it have been to strike those portions of scripture, and record only the noble accomplishments of the "man after God's own heart?" Surely David as the "type" of the later MOTA's should have re-written history in a more favorable light! Shouldn't King David have held a Whistler-like Quarantine for Nathan the Prophet before turning him into a pile of rubble?!?

But alas ... the Bible is not the words of man, neither written nor re-written by our past leaders. The Bible addresses failures without the respect of persons. God has good reasons to do this! More troublesome to me than just dwelling on "some 'good' branches' of the evil tree," is the crafty system of error which so shields itself of all culpability.

The corollary to this thought is the equally upsetting, though unspoken, premise that every ministry book is part of the "tree of life."

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The corollary to this thought is the equally upsetting, though unspoken, premise that every ministry book is part of the "tree of life."

Ohio is being generous. Here is Witness Lee quoting John Ingalls (!), courtesy of Steve Isitt:

John Ingalls gave the highest endorsement imaginable of Brother Lee’s ministry, which is recorded in seven pages of The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, p. 44-51. Brother Lee shares, “As late as March 1986, John spoke strongly for the one accord and the ministry in a conference in Mexico City, saying that ‘when you leave the ministry you leave your first love’; that ‘when we leave the ministry we have fallen’; that ‘the ministry brings us the tree of life’; that ‘the ministry prepares us in such a way to be faithful unto death’; that ‘when we take this ministry…we get the hidden manna’; that ‘the ministry is like the morning star to us’; that ‘the Lord is coming through the ministry’; that ‘the ministry brings us the seven Spirits’; and that ‘by keeping the ministry we become Philadelphia’. This message was given only one month after I gave the messages on one accord in the elders’ training in February 1986. Surely it was a strong confirmation of my messages, showing that the speaker was more than positive toward my ministry”.

http://www.hidinghistoryinthelordsre...yAddressed.pdf

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

However you slice it, there is no escaping this fact -- some brothers have left us and started another, separate group. Some on our side are against your side. Some on your side are against our side. This is division. There is no other word for it. No matter how many good, solid, correct and utterly righteous reasons there may have been for it, some have formed a division. Above EVERY other sin, division is the worst! This you already know to be true. And we both have allowed our leaders to commit division. We cannot stand with them in this matter.

As I stated above, very little of what you are sending me is news. Speaking only for myself, I readily recognize, admit and concede that there were evils -- both gross and subtile -- committed among us that were not properly and swiftly dealt with as they should have been, to the detriment and stumbling of many dear saints. And some who committed these evils are still among us. It is a grief and a shame.

The divisions must stop. And it first must stop with you and with me. Of two things, I am sure. For the divisions to cease will come from the small saints, not from the leading ones. And it will not come from facts, but through love and forgiveness. Without Love and Forgiveness, then I fear we are BOTH in sects, and can join the Brethren in the history books.

I agree with some of the content here the brother wrote to Steve as I have those portions in bold. Definitely without love and forgiveness. Honestly, the love that exists is not the love of God, but the love of man; a natural love. A kind of love Jesus speaks of in Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them." How can there be forgiveness if there's no willingness to even acknowedge those that offended. The brother writing the email brought up Max's name. What about Max. What if he repented? What if I said Max went to Francis Ball's memorial a few years ago?

Divisions must stop and it must stop with you and me. Amen! Simultaneously would ones meeting in the local churches raise an objection next time a blended brother makes references to rebellions? I can understand why brothers in places like Toronto, Detroit, etc may feel it's not profitable to bring up past matters. Many of come in to the local churches since 1990.

It's this same matter that has bothered me when I did meet with the local churches. Elders/co-workerds have been unimpeded in their speaking or in print in running down brothers and even localities that separated from LSM fellowship. Is this normal in other Christian circles? In other words instead of running down brothers, is there grace given. In Acts 15:39 Paul and Barnabas separated over Mark. In Paul's letter to the Colossians, Paul wrote if Mark came they were to receive him.

[TLFisher]

"Referring to the talk going around in the church about certain issues, he said, “What a travesty that the saints of God would speak out of the knowledge of good and evil and kill each other.” He added, “I simply will not sit in a brothers’ presence and allow him to fill me with death,” meaning that he would not listen to those concerned with issues of right and wrong in the church."

What a travesty.....what a travesty feelings of members of the Body is marginalized, minimized, and devalued.