Double Standards

[NewManLiving]

That would be the natural response to defend or to excuse sin. However, in Matthew chapter 5, the Lord speaks to us about our everyday living as members of His Body and citizens of His Kingdom. He concludes His sermon by encouraging us to be perfect as our Father is perfect. He makes an emphatic point about love:

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same

In the LSMLC organization there is overwhelming evidence that they love only themselves and those like themselves. I doubt if anyone of them would sincerely tell Steve or anyone else on this forum that they love us and mean it! In their deceived and corrupt way of thinking, we are all Men of Death

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

That would be the natural response to defend or to excuse sin. However, in Matthew chapter 5, the Lord speaks to us about our everyday living as members of His Body and citizens of His Kingdom. He concludes His sermon by encouraging us to be perfect as our Father is perfect. He makes an emphatic point about love:

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same

In the LSMLC organization there is overwhelming evidence that they love only themselves and those like themselves. I doubt if anyone of them would sincerely tell Steve or anyone else on this forum that they love us and mean it! In their deceived and corrupt way of thinking, we are all Men of Death

Unfortunately, the precedent that has been set within the LC is that of rewarding loyalty. I don't think members are incapable of loving those outside the LC, but they also know that loyalty to the LC comes first no matter what. If loving someone would interfere with loyalty to the system, then loyalty comes first.

A type of mutual love does exist between LC members, such as what is discussed in Matt 5, but unfortunately, this type of pretentious love and the environment that it creates is often taken to mean something significant, when it's really not. Jesus basically says that it means nothing. LC Members look at themselves and see lots of hospitality being given and received. They couldn't imagine this happening in other Christian groups. In their mind, the matter is settled right then and there. They take it as evidence that the LC is so much better than anywhere else. But this all happens within the confines of the LC. Outsiders aren't treated in the same fashion, and those who have left are treated even worse. So it's all fake. It's all based upon a double standard. If LCers want to live in their own bubble, that's fine by me, not my problem. But they shouldn't claim that the environment in this bubble is so significant and so much better than anything else.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Unfortunately, the precedent that has been set within the LC is that of rewarding loyalty. I don't think members are incapable of loving those outside the LC, but they also know that loyalty to the LC comes first no matter what. If loving someone would interfere with loyalty to the system, then loyalty comes first.

A type of mutual love does exist between LC members, such as what is discussed in Matt 5, but unfortunately, this type of pretentious love and the environment that it creates is often taken to mean something significant, when it's really not.

The mutual love mentioned in Freedom's post is really a type of conditional love. As long as you're there for the ministry, there will be the appearance of love.

"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. " 1 Corinthians 13:1

In the LSM/LC fellowship it's loyalty that trumps whatever love may be. The blended brothers for years have been "a noisy gong" as I have a difficult time seeing any love from.
Even locally in the Puget Sound region local elders may verbally express love for one Indiana, but to exhibit love to this brother they cannot even speak to him.
It may be loyalty is considered unconditional. For an elder, to have their loyalty to LSM brought under scrutiny is non-negotiable.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

In the LSM/LC fellowship it's loyalty that trumps whatever love may be. The blended brothers for years have been "a noisy gong" as I have a difficult time seeing any love from.
Even locally in the Puget Sound region local elders may verbally express love for one Indiana, but to exhibit love to this brother they cannot even speak to him.
It may be loyalty is considered unconditional. For an elder, to have their loyalty to LSM brought under scrutiny is non-negotiable.

There is an inherent conflict of interest at play in the LC.

When Jesus was questioned about which commandment is the greatest, his answer was two-fold. He said "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

I don't see anything there about loyalty to the ministry or loyalty to the blendeds. Why must love be confined to what the blendeds want? It's really sad.

[TLFisher]

In reading David Canfield's recent post at http://www.standforthetestimony.org/...ess/#more-1146
I am reminded it's only natural the blended co-workers might react defensively. As if they would say, "he (David) is using the ministry to attack the ministry".

Point is, by referring back to messages Lee spoke in the 60's and 70's, one can point out contradictions from the spoken messages compared to LC practices. Throughout Lee's ministry, there is example after example of double standards.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

In reading David Canfield's recent post at [link]
I am reminded it's only natural the blended co-workers might react defensively. As if they would say, "he (David) is using the ministry to attack the ministry".

Point is, by referring back to messages Lee spoke in the 60's and 70's, one can point out contradictions from the spoken messages compared to LC practices. Throughout Lee's ministry, there is example after example of double standards.

In fact, there are so many contradictions and double standards that it is difficult to say whether Lee ever really believed the stuff he taught early on.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

In reading David Canfield's recent post at http://www.standforthetestimony.org/...ess/#more-1146
I am reminded it's only natural the blended co-workers might react defensively. As if they would say, "he (David) is using the ministry to attack the ministry".

Point is, by referring back to messages Lee spoke in the 60's and 70's, one can point out contradictions from the spoken messages compared to LC practices. Throughout Lee's ministry, there is example after example of double standards.

It is remarkable to note that both W. Nee and W. Lee started out in their early days following Open Brethren teachings and practices, and then both Nee and Lee in their later days followed Exclusive Brethren practices. Every time Lee had a fresh start (Taipei 1950, Los Angeles 1962), he reverted to his Open practices. As time went on, he morphed back into his Exclusive ways, as Nee himself did when his ministry resumed in 1948.

Today the Open Brethren (think G. Muller, RC Chapman, AN Groves, GH Lang) and the Exclusives (think JN Darby, GV Wigram, Wm. Kelly, JB Stoney) are still fighting.

There is no way to reconcile early Lee with later Lee. There are just too many startling contradictions. During the recent GLA quarantines, Anaheim and Cleveland faced this same quandary as they battled it out in tract wars over "who is the real Witness Lee?" Cleveland armed themselves with quotations from stacks of Lee books basically claiming he was like the "Open" Brethren. The Blendeds, of course, convinced that they alone knew the "real Lee" portrayed him as the "Exclusive" Brethren.