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

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

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

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

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

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

What boundary is that?

James 4:11-12

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

What is the boundary:

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

James 4:11-12

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

What is the boundary:

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

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

James 4:11-12

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

What is the boundary:

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

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

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

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

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

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

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

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

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

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

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

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

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

Off topic. Non responsive. Strawman. Red herring.

Any number of ways to respond to your irrelevancy.

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Off topic. Non responsive. Strawman. Red herring.

Any number of ways to respond to your irrelevancy.

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

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

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

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

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

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