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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Z,
It's even worse than that.
A poster that Witness Lee was "not clean" thereby denying the power of the precious blood of Christ. It is one thing to reject a man's ministry, but it is entirely shocking to hear this poster reject the most fundamental truth of the christian faith.
Cassidy

I believe you are referring to Post #136 in the thread on the ground of the church. Particularly to this line:

The word of God came to us through holy men, cleansed men, such as David and Moses.

Witness Lee was not clean.

I was under the impression that this had been edited out by the poster, but have since seen that it hasn't. Since then I have seen Igzy and OBW's reference to this and read their comments.

I am also grieved by this. When looking at the sins committed by the "holy men" of the Bible I feel that WL's sins as described on this forum are on par with them. I do not see them as categorically more heinous (i.e. the sin for which there is no forgiveness as mentioned by Jesus). I understand OBW's point that when you sin before all you need to confess before all. However I also agree with you that the final analysis on who is and is not clean is up to the Lord.

But, looking at all three posts, I don't see that anyone has denied that the blood cleanses our sins.

For example, I have repeatedly asked OBW to apologize for posts he has made, and this has gone on for months. Has he ever done that? No. Were the posts made before all? Yes. By his own admission shouldn't he therefore apologize before all? Yes. I feel I have the right to point these out, but I don't have the right to then say "he is not clean". That is for the Lord to judge.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I believe you are referring to Post #136 in the thread on the ground of the church. Particularly to this line:

The word of God came to us through holy men, cleansed men, such as David and Moses.

Witness Lee was not clean.

I was under the impression that this had been edited out by the poster, but have since seen that it hasn't. Since then I have seen Igzy and OBW's reference to this and read their comments.

I am also grieved by this. When looking at the sins committed by the "holy men" of the Bible I feel that WL's sins as described on this forum are on par with them. I do not see them as categorically more heinous (i.e. the sin for which there is no forgiveness as mentioned by Jesus). I understand OBW's point that when you sin before all you need to confess before all. However I also agree with you that the final analysis on who is and is not clean is up to the Lord.

But, looking at all three posts, I don't see that anyone has denied that the blood cleanses our sins.

For example, I have repeatedly asked OBW to apologize for posts he has made, and this has gone on for months. Has he ever done that? No. Were the posts made before all? Yes. By his own admission shouldn't he therefore apologize before all? Yes. I feel I have the right to point these out, but I don't have the right to then say "he is not clean". That is for the Lord to judge.

Apologize for what? For disagreeing with your position? Are you unable to separate yourself from the things you say?

You constantly assert that I am calling you a liar for suggesting a strawman argument. You ignore that I do not suggest that it is intentional. Even state that I only note that you are not responding to the point I made, but to something else. Whether intentional or not, since it stands in for my actual point, it is a strawman. I think you will find every one of them to be in that nature. But if you become too "one" with your argument, it is too easy to consider that an attack on the argument is a personal attack.

And since my observations had been that you were quite intelligent, probably even more so than myself, I began to find so many of the misdirects to be stacking up as suggesting that you didn't really want to deal with my point, but to simply make your own.

If that is the case, then say so. Just say you don't care what I say. I won't waste my time on someone who is intending to dismiss me.

But I have mostly presumed otherwise. And for long periods of time. The one or two times that I actually "called you out" you have declared that I have misread you. One time declaring that you didn't have time yet to respond. But you had time to post several paragraphs on the topic, just not responsive to the question.

In a few instances you have pointed back at posts and declared that you did not say some particular thing. You do so with incredulity. But the places that you point to were not understood to support your incredulity. And you have a number of posters on the forum saying the same thing. Not just me. You make absolute statements and then run from their absoluteness. Someone takes exception with what you say and you declare an ad hominem.

Even this post is not an ad hominem. This post is not declaring that what you say is invalid because you are (whatever). It is pointing to the faults in your reasoning. Even where that reasoning is about what is being said to you. No one has called you a liar. But there does seem to be a serious disconnect between what we say and how you respond to it. And you don't like people disagreeing with you. Get used to dissappointment. It happens to us all the time.

I do not declare that my statements are simply true. But too often you do not respond by taking on my argument, but by suggesting that I shouldn't even think it. Or say it. Or act incredulous that I could think it.

Like that Jesse thing. It's fine to think what you want about how Jesse taught David. But you can't declare with any certainty that Jesse taught David anything. It is speculation. And the fact that Jesse's name is mentioned does not support your claim. Yet you persist. And respond with incredulity when we disagree.

Then we come to the discussion about Lee's "position" as any kind of teacher, from children's church all the way up to MOTA. And you start throwing out James with the suggestion that maybe we can't even judge whether the claim of MOTA is valid. And if you didn't intend to suggest that, then just say so. Admit that the very short thing you wrote could be misunderstood and clarify it for us. I am accused of repeating myself in multiple posts. It is because someone has responded in a manner that convinces me that I was not clear about what I said. Maybe I just am never as clear as I think I am.

There is a simple solution for you. Drop the "poor me" attitude. Quit taking exception to those who take exception to points made. Get engaged in making your point more clearly. Be strong for your point. That is OK. But don't be inflexible. If you think the rest of us have not changed our positions as a result of these discussions, you would be horribly mistaken. This forum gave me more reason to avoid the LRC and to rethink the whole of it. But it has also given me pause to moderate my position on the people. Even on the brothers who have harmed others so greatly. I see the errors of theology, like the Ground and Jesus became the Holy Spirit as less egregious in themselves. I do continue to hold that what grows out of those is seriously harmful to the current condition of the LRC.

But back to the present. You want to discuss what is ours to judge? Bring out all the verses. I suggest that you include near synonyms, like discernment, choice, etc. Let's discuss what we are to judge/discern and what is not ours. I think that the evidence will show that we are instructed by Paul to take note of Lee's sins when considering him as a minister. There is a difference between David, Moses, and Lee. Yes, they all were openly disobedient. And there was open sin. But David and Moses repented. Lee did not. Even his near deathbed repentance was too vague and general to have been understood as repenting for what should have set him aside.

And David essentially stepped aside for a time to repent and mourn over his sin. Since Lee's sins were against the churches, it would require that he also repent openly to them. He did not. From the start of the sin until the repentance, there is no place for his teaching. And there is evidence that the first unrepented sin was in the 50s. Maybe earlier. It clearly happened in the mid 70s. First with Daystar, and then with PL. The only repentance was for pushing the envelope with Max. And he wasn't even honest with that. He blamed it all on Max. And ignored PL.

The event in the 80s was just continuance of the original sin. David's situation, and that of Moses, did not go on for such a period of time. David slipped by for 9 months and paid dearly. And openly. It is recorded for all to read. Moses was dealt with immediately. If Lee was chastised by God, he would have had to deal with how it flowed out onto the people. First in effectively stealing their savings. (And since the way the thing was sold was illegal, I'm pretty sure that a court of law would have agreed and penalized them for the scheme, maybe even with jail time.) Then with pushing an immoral person on the churches and allowing him to force the sale of LSM products. Which went into their pocket in some form. Lee lived in a house provided by the church. He traveled at others' expense. And he forced churches to buy his books. There is a record of this.

No repentance. I think Paul would reject. Trying to stall the inquiry seems quite the dodge.

And one thing to add. Since there seems to have been an ongoing issue from the 50s until his death, his constant insertion of himself as spiritual leader can be nothing but suspect. It should suggest a disconnect between the claimed connection with God and the kind of disconnect with God that the ongoing sin indicates. That should give me reason to seriously question anything that Lee taught that was not simply a verbatim repeat of standard orthodoxy. Surely anything peculiar should be suspect. It should at least require that we get into our minds and out of our emotions and search the scriptures. Come together to reason over the proposed teachings. Take the weight of centuries of teaching to the contrary rather than rejecting even opening their books and reading only his.

That is the kind of arrogance that seems contrary to even a true MOTA. If there actually should be such a person, Lee fails to act like one. He now seems more like the guy who eluded the FBI for years as recently portrayed in the movie "Catch Me If You Can."