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

Originally Posted by Igzy

The argument which some are making that OBW rejects WL's ministry therefore OBW must be rejecting things like justification by faith is simply a stupid argument. I wouldn't register for the board either if that's the best I had to offer.

I assume this sophomoric counter argument is meant for me so thanks for the opportunity to respond. Yet you are truly straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

In another thread you turn a complete blind eye to a poster who claimed that WL was not "clean" because of his sins therefore his ministry should be discarded too. The premise of that argument is even worse than the one OBW made because that argument suggests that the blood of Christ is not efficacious for that brother (WL). What poster has a right to make such a declaration? None. Yet it is part and parcel to the attitudes expressed in this forum such as yours where people seat themselves in the judgment seat reserved for Christ and Christ alone.

You let that camel slip right down without so much as hiccup.

Cassidy

[OBW]

The whole problem here is that you are making a huge presumption that to judge the nature of what we can see is somehow to be "speaking evil."

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.

And no one has suggested that we must know the heart. The evidence is in the actions. If there are certain signs, Paul suggested that rejection was acceptable, and even insisted upon.

You are claiming that pointing to strong evidence is equivalent to speaking evil and therefore cannot be. This is the kind of speaking that allowed Benson, Ray, Lee, Kangas, and so many others to declare that anyone who exposes the wrongs of their spiritual superiors (most notably Lee or any of the upper echelons) is guilty no matter how right they are.

It simply falls back under that heinous rule of "right and wrong do not matter, only the spirit." Well, the "spirit" they are speaking of is not the one that Paul ever spoke of. It is something else. It is some code for "spiritual authorities are exempt from righteousness." And to suggest otherwise is to join them.

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.

Funny way to argue with me. I was responding to a post of yours other than the first one. You didn't respond to me, but to something else. It makes your response "off topic" relative to what I was speaking of. It was more truly a strawman — not necessarily for advantage of defeating it and appearing to defeat may actual argument. But it was a change of the subject. Willful or not. Underhanded or not. You dodged the subject.

And every bit of this is relevant to whether you can dismiss Lee's ministry. According to Paul, it is quite essential that those kinds of things be considered. You, along with others, were so strong for the adherence to the qualifications for elders, yet you do not even require those for the source of your teachings. You do not require that your teacher(s) at least admit their faults and repent when they are found in sin. And take at least some time out if not step aside altogether. Instead, they are clothed in an impenetrable shield that makes all faults, great or small, irrelevant. Why? Because they brought a bunch of teachings to us that made us feel superior? If we dismiss the source of our superiority, we will fall in our own eyes.

It would be a great fall. But again, only in our own eyes. We are the only ones who ever thought we were so much because of those teachings. And even if we have rejected the superiority, if we cling to the erroneous teachings, we know that they will not be found anywhere else, so we continue to cling to the source.

It does seem a dichotomy to declare that we are all fallen and then note that we accept the teachings of many fallen teachers. But those teachers are not declaring their folly to be righteous, their business to be no one's but their own. Yet their business controls the very life of the churches it touches. How can that only be Lee's own business? The very position reeks of hypocrisy. If it affects the churches by requirement, then it is the business of every member of those churches.

So a man who puts an openly immoral man in charge of the affairs of those churches through a "ministry office" is to be allowed to do so and any comment about it declared to be "evil"? And how is this so important? That office has directed that its churches must cease certain meetings of the church, and instead have meetings for the purpose of effectively reading through materials that must be bought from the ministry. It is making God's house a house of merchandise. A personal piggy bank. I don't fault the churches for having book sales, even of LSM books. I fault the LSM for forcing itself upon the churches and requiring their payments. It is a variant on the sale of indulgences.

Complain about this being "off topic" if you will. It is sound reason for rejecting the ministry of Lee.

And you can reject the ministry of Lee, and his "service" to the churches, without denying him a place among the redeemed. And without speaking evil of him.

But speaking evil of him is really about speaking of him in a manner that would be blaspheme if said of God. Blaspheme is to say something knowingly untrue about God as a slight against his character. Speaking the truth is not blaspheme. (And there are people these days that are sure that God cannot be the God that wiped out all but 8 people in a flood. So they either have to say that is a misunderstanding of God written into "scripture" by men, or that God is unjust. Either way is to misrepresent God.) We are not misrepresenting Lee. We are telling it like it is. That is not evil.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

The whole problem here is that you are making a huge presumption that to judge the nature of what we can see is somehow to be "speaking evil."
And no one has suggested that we must know the heart. The evidence is in the actions. If there are certain signs, Paul suggested that rejection was acceptable, and even insisted upon.

Do you read what has been written? I am looking at verses that tell us not to judge and am trying to make a distinction between what we are to judge and what we are not to judge. If you can explain James, and Paul and Jesus better, by all means do so. James talks about speaking evil and judging the brothers. I did not presume this, it is in the Bible. The question is what does this mean?

Originally Posted by OBW

You are claiming that pointing to strong evidence is equivalent to speaking evil and therefore cannot be. This is the kind of speaking that allowed Benson, Ray, Lee, Kangas, and so many others to declare that anyone who exposes the wrongs of their spiritual superiors (most notably Lee or any of the upper echelons) is guilty no matter how right they are.

Once again this is utterly false. Where did I make such a claim. I have repeatedly said that based on my understanding of the Bible we are to judge sin. My point in the story about the girl is that pointing to the photographic evidence, the "strong evidence" you refer to, is fine. Even judging that the girl took the computer is also fine. I have no issue with the exposing of the wrong doing that was done. My issue is to take the next step of judging that the girl is a thief, or judging that the girl deserves amnesty. I have been involved in discussions of the evidence concerning WL's sins as well as others. Please back up your statement that "I am claiming that pointing to strong evidence is equivalent to speaking evil".

Originally Posted by OBW

It simply falls back under that heinous rule of "right and wrong do not matter, only the spirit." Well, the "spirit" they are speaking of is not the one that Paul ever spoke of. It is something else. It is some code for "spiritual authorities are exempt from righteousness." And to suggest otherwise is to join them.

No it doesn't. I have agreed with UntoHim that we are called to judge if the apostles or prophets are false. I reconcile this with James and Paul and Jesus by saying that judging actions is something we are called to do, but judging the hearts is not. When did I ever make a distinction that "spiritual authorities are exempt from righteousness"? You put that in quotes, who are you quoting? I never said this, I never implied this, to say that I did is a lie.

Originally Posted by OBW

Funny way to argue with me. I was responding to a post of yours other than the first one. You didn't respond to me, but to something else. It makes your response "off topic" relative to what I was speaking of. It was more truly a strawman — not necessarily for advantage of defeating it and appearing to defeat may actual argument. But it was a change of the subject. Willful or not. Underhanded or not. You dodged the subject.

I have no idea what post you are referring to. What it means is that your posts are impossible to follow or decipher.

Originally Posted by OBW

And every bit of this is relevant to whether you can dismiss Lee's ministry. According to Paul, it is quite essential that those kinds of things be considered. You, along with others, were so strong for the adherence to the qualifications for elders, yet you do not even require those for the source of your teachings. You do not require that your teacher(s) at least admit their faults and repent when they are found in sin. And take at least some time out if not step aside altogether. Instead, they are clothed in an impenetrable shield that makes all faults, great or small, irrelevant. Why? Because they brought a bunch of teachings to us that made us feel superior? If we dismiss the source of our superiority, we will fall in our own eyes.

What are you talking about? This is gibberish. "You don't require that your teacher(s) at least admit their faults and repent when they are found in sin." When did I say this? Based on what are you making this allegation. This post is absurd gibberish. You have ascribed beliefs to me that I don't have nor have I ever made. They are "clothed with an impenetrable shield that makes all faults, great or small, irrelevant." Where do you get this garbage, I never said any such thing.

Originally Posted by OBW

It would be a great fall. But again, only in our own eyes. We are the only ones who ever thought we were so much because of those teachings. And even if we have rejected the superiority, if we cling to the erroneous teachings, we know that they will not be found anywhere else, so we continue to cling to the source.

It does seem a dichotomy to declare that we are all fallen and then note that we accept the teachings of many fallen teachers. But those teachers are not declaring their folly to be righteous, their business to be no one's but their own. Yet their business controls the very life of the churches it touches. How can that only be Lee's own business? The very position reeks of hypocrisy. If it affects the churches by requirement, then it is the business of every member of those churches.

So then expose the hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by OBW

So a man who puts an openly immoral man in charge of the affairs of those churches through a "ministry office" is to be allowed to do so and any comment about it declared to be "evil"?

Who has said this? If these are the facts, and they are public knowledge, by all means "judge the sin". I have spoken plainly and consistently. There is no basis whatsoever to twist my words to say what you are saying. James is the one who said not to speak evil of a brother, if you have a problem with that verse take it up with James, not me. There are many examples in the NT of evil doers being exposed. I have referred to several, I have acknowledged them, and I have also done the same in my participation on this and other forums.

Originally Posted by OBW

And how is this so important? That office has directed that its churches must cease certain meetings of the church, and instead have meetings for the purpose of effectively reading through materials that must be bought from the ministry. It is making God's house a house of merchandise. A personal piggy bank. I don't fault the churches for having book sales, even of LSM books. I fault the LSM for forcing itself upon the churches and requiring their payments. It is a variant on the sale of indulgences.

Complain about this being "off topic" if you will. It is sound reason for rejecting the ministry of Lee.

And you can reject the ministry of Lee, and his "service" to the churches, without denying him a place among the redeemed. And without speaking evil of him.

But speaking evil of him is really about speaking of him in a manner that would be blaspheme if said of God. Blaspheme is to say something knowingly untrue about God as a slight against his character. Speaking the truth is not blaspheme. (And there are people these days that are sure that God cannot be the God that wiped out all but 8 people in a flood. So they either have to say that is a misunderstanding of God written into "scripture" by men, or that God is unjust. Either way is to misrepresent God.) We are not misrepresenting Lee. We are telling it like it is. That is not evil.

You have spoken many things in here that are untrue concerning me. I would never take your word about anyone. This post is slanderous.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The premise of that argument is even worse than the one OBW made because that argument suggests that the blood of Christ is not efficacious for that brother (WL).

The blood of Christ is very efficacious, even for Lee. But as he has sinned openly against the flock, he is also required to repent to the flock. Failure there removes his "right" to any claim of "teacher." Just ask Paul. MOTA is right out.

[OBW]

I'm going to make one last comment for the day. Be sure to read it all before you (whoever) comment. Don't accuse me of something that I don't say, especially where I make it clear what I am and/or am not saying.

I believe that there are requirements on those who teach us. Those requirements are not so great that the very existence of human frailty would reject anyone actually of the human race. But they are still very real. Just like the qualifications for elder and deacon, there are qualifications for anyone who is teaching. And depending on what kind of teaching, the level of qualifications increases. (But that is irrelevant for this post.)

(I note that Lee and his successors constantly demean virtually all teachers outside of the LRC. They are all "clergy" which is "bad." But if anyone says anything about any of them, especially Lee (even after his death), they are subject to excommunication. So the playing field for determining qualifications for leadership is far from level. The only leaders of the church are declared to be in the LRC. All those others are leaders of harlots.)

But let's look at what scripture provides on the subject.

Unfortunately, the qualifications to be a teacher are not gathered together as nicely as Paul did for elders and deacons. So we have to find different passages and piece them together.

Stop those who are teaching "differently." Who are teaching endless genealogies and other things that just increase arguments and strive. (And I would argue that soliloquies about what it means to be "the one" bringing "the ministry" is a kind of genealogy that leads to identification of a "MOTA," and "oracle," or even an "acting god.")

Reject those that cause divisions. Those that denigrate your brothers and sisters in Christ as demonic, satanic, and even the Whore of Babylon.

Note those that keep putting the law on you. Who require circumcision, a standing order for LSM books, and a proper respect for "our brother, Witness Lee."

It may not always be our place to decide whether teachings are good or bad (stubble or precious stones). But when we see it, we shouldn't just sit there and take it.

But there is no place in scripture that suggests that we are to simply accept every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes along with a claim of revelation. It almost seems as if the thrust of those defending the ministry of Lee are determined that because they like some of the things he said, the evidence that he was not what he claimed to be should be overlooked. And further, anyone who disagrees is going against scripture to do so.

And for every one who is taking one of these positions — any variant — I suggest that you should be stuck with Lee, Benny Hinn, Jim Baaker, Herbert W. Armstrong, Joseph Smith, Thomas Campbell, William Miller, Harold Campings, Jimmy Swaggert, Brian McLaren, etc.

We are not charged to slander any of these men. Or to misrepresent the things they taught or said. But we are, at a minimum, not refrained from determining whether the teachings of any of these men, or of any others you want to include in the mix, are sound.

And if you read Paul's comments on the subject, there is not only the watchfulness concerning proper teachings, but of open, unrepentant character flaws that evidence a person not right before God in a manner sufficient to allow them as a teacher. Of those unrepentant persons, I find Lee to be among them. And I also find significant flaw in his teachings. I cannot say which is the cause of the other. But they do seem to go hand-in-hand.

But some are determined that if he ever said a true thing, then he is to be left to fleece the flock. He can no longer do that. (I am not thankful for his death, just noting that due to it, there is nothing new going on there.) But others continue to push is faulty teachings. And they do it in a more dictatorial manner than even Lee did. Yet it is an outgrowth of Lee's teachings. It is the logical progression of teachings that make position and doctrine trump obedience and righteousness. That suggest that a "spiritual authority" should not submit to any accusation. Interesting that this is essentially Nee's teaching. At least he didn't hide behind it. That was what Lee did. Then his successors drove a truck through it.