Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The idea of these sects meeting independently in their own groups is wrong because verse 18 says:

That is essentially the way every expositor has interpreted this.

They have also interpreted these parties as the root of denominations, and that includes WL.

But I have a couple of questions.

1. Suppose they didn't have a single meeting place where they all could meet. That seems like a very reasonable question since this is the case today. Would these various meetings be homogenous, or would they separate based on their parties? We already know as Ohio has brought up that their Lord's table meetings were in disarray due to the factions and parties. That is a direct reference to the fact that the divisions were visible in the way they met.

2. If people were subject to parties, factions and divisions, would that have been expressed in the home meetings? Did all those who "were of Paul" meet together in their home meetings? That seems reasonable to me based on my experience in the church and on internet forums.

3. We (every Bible expositor and myself) all agree that the major issue addressed in the epistle to Corinth was the parties and factions, yet we also all agree that the epistle was written to all of them (even those who were denominated based on their pet doctrines and favorite apostles). How is that any different from today? Every Christian, regardless of denomination or pet doctrine, feels this epistle was written to them.

4. When WL says that Corinth is a typical church, just like today, I agree that the "Church in NY" is just like Corinth, it is full of babes in Christ, Christians who are walking like men based on envy and strife. They are denominated based on doctrine, favorite apostles, and wealth. But that doesn't mean that there is a single fellowship meeting in one meeting hall like that, but rather refers to the entire situation in NY when viewed as a whole. So then, do you agree with WL that the church in Corinth is typical to the situation today in NYC in total?

Based on that I am questioning whether the term "the church in Corinth" applied to a single meeting hall address or rather was the way Paul addressed all the Christians in the city as a whole. When I read 1Corinth 3 it seems absurd to me that the conclusion of Paul's rejection of names like "of Paul", "of Peter", and "of Christ" is to present a better name of the "church in blank".

[Cal]

Theories of how things were in olden times only take us so far.

The question today is what to do, if anything, about the current situation.

Suppose the answer is that we all should come together. The question becomes how.

The LCM's answer is that everyone should join them, that they are the 'one place' everyone should gather at. This is unreasonable however. Who decided the LCM was the place to be, other than them?

LCM calls to oneness on "the local ground" are disingenuous. Many groups meet as the church in the city. The LCM recognizes none of them that are not subordinate to LSM. Plainly they are interested in oneness based on them, not locality.

So calls to local oneness by such as Evangelical are little more than ways to bash any group not subordinate to the LCM movement.

Read my new signature. Since no group can insist that it is THE place to be, all groups must respect the others as long as they are not blatantly sectarian, and simply having a name and meeting according to one's conscience is not sectarian. We all can lament lacks of unity, but none of us can say that the answer to that is for everyone to join our group. That being the case, continuing to harp about "denominations" is non-productive and in fact sectarian in spirit.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Since no group can insist that it is THE place to be, all groups must respect the others as long as they are not blatantly sectarian, and simply having a name and meeting according to one's conscience is not sectarian. We all can lament lacks of unity, but none of us can say that the answer to that is for everyone to join our group. That being the case, continuing to harp about "denominations" is non-productive and in fact sectarian in spirit.

Jesus already came here: love your neighbor, not in word but in deed. Blessed is the servant found giving food to his neighbor, not just the fellow one-grounder or Baptist. Your neighbor may be an Arab or a Jew. Do you feed them sectarian doctrine? Is that love?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Jesus already came here: love your neighbor, not in word but in deed. Blessed is the servant found giving food to his neighbor, not just the fellow one-grounder or Baptist. Your neighbor may be an Arab or a Jew. Do you feed them sectarian doctrine? Is that love?

Evangelical's (and the LCM's) attitude is in fact judgmentalism. It is not presented in spirit of love or care, even for oneness, let alone people. I get no sense of their being heartbroken for oneness, just of cold legalism. I'm reminded of these words of Jesus:

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." Matt 23:2-3.

Evangelical is sometimes "right" in letter. But he is almost always wrong in spirit. His grasp of oneness is superficial and according to law, not according to the actual spirit of what oneness is. True oneness can never be the fruit of such an approach.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Evangelical's (and the LCM's) attitude is in fact judgmentalism. It is not presented in spirit of love or care, even for oneness, let alone people. I get no sense of their being heartbroken for oneness, just of cold legalism. I'm reminded of these words of Jesus:

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." Matt 23:2-3.

Evangelical is sometimes "right" in letter. But he is almost always wrong in spirit. His grasp of oneness is superficial and according to law, not according to the actual spirit of what oneness is. True oneness can never be the fruit of such an approach.

So why arent you careful to do everything we tell you?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So why arent you careful to do everything we tell you?

Ha,ha. Jeremiah 31:34/Hebrews 8:11 is the reality today. Our dependence on Moses-like leaders is OT and obsolete. The early Apostles were a transitional thing. But once the Bible was completed such leaders were no longer part of God's economy. Witness Lee as MOTA is regressive and actually contrary to NT reality.

God obviously trusts his Spirit more than he trusts a legalistic system with absolute authority at the top. That being the case we need to trust the Spirit/conscience in others. The LCM practice of disrespecting persons and groups who don't submit to their line of authority is contrary to that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Theories of how things were in olden times only take us so far.

Both of your corollaries are based on the verse "let each be fully persuaded". Shouldn't there be other corollaries based on "obey your leaders"?

1. If you are unable to obey your leaders it is a sin (rebellion to the word of God). Either on your part or on the part of the leaders.

therefore

2. If you have separated because of offense you are required to notify the offending party prior to taking the Lord's table.

3. Likewise, if you have been notified that there are those offended by your sins you are required to first be reconciled before you can take the Lord's table.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Both of your corollaries are based on the verse "let each be fully persuaded". Shouldn't there be other corollaries based on "obey your leaders"?

I only had one corollary, it is based on the combination of the two truths.

It's only rebellion if you focus on that one verse to the exclusion of the other. Both verses taken together can only mean that conscience trumps leadership. Obeying leaders plainly cannot be an absolute requirement.

Conscience includes God's direct leading. For example, if I feel God is leading me to move to another city and my elder says I shouldn't, I still have to follow my leading if it doesn't change and he should honor that. Outside of strong feelings of leading otherwise, we should follow leaders.

Of course, some might say, well, that gives people an "out" to claiming "leading" they don't really have. But if you are going to mistrust the integrity and inner registrations of others the church can't work in the first place. Plus it is contrary to Jeremiah 31:34/Hebrew 8:11:

"No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD.

Conscience actually trumps everything, because in order to know if anything is right, including obeying leaders, your conscience must tell you. There is no registration of right and wrong without conscience.

So when you say, obey your conscience except when it contradicts your leaders, you are really saying, obey your conscience except when your conscience tells you not to obey your conscience. Which is absurd.

[ZNPaaneah]

If you accept the basic premise of "deputy authority" then the absolute is to obey Jesus Christ who is Lord. Therefore if obeying the leaders among you requires you to not obey Jesus then that would be the basis for not obeying them, but it therefore requires that the leaders have sinned and have not reconciled that offense.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you accept the basic premise of "deputy authority" then the absolute is to obey Jesus Christ who is Lord. Therefore if obeying the leaders among you requires you to not obey Jesus then that would be the basis for not obeying them, but it therefore requires that the leaders have sinned and have not reconciled that offense.

In the case of the LCM, there are plenty of sins they have not reconciled. So that point is moot.

But in general, I believe that God raises up leaders for certain flocks. If I join that flock I should respect the leaders there. But if I choose to leave that flock the leaders no longer have sway over me. Whether I leave the flock is between me and the Lord. It's not for anyone else to say whether my reasons were proper or not. Romans 12 simply requires me to be "fully persuaded in my own mind."

Why would I leave the flock? The issues might be practical or moral. For example, I may just move, or I may decided the Lord is leading me to leave for a positive reason, or I may decide that I disagree with certain practices, for example like suing other Christians.

The LCM creates false restrictions that say you must meet with the church in the city (which of course is them) and so have no good reason to leave because they are the only legitimate place to meet. I disagree with this fundamentally, in part because it forces member to compromises their consciences if they disagree with certain teachings or practices.

I think it is manifestly clear that such restrictive expectations are not the place of leaders to try to enforce (or Internet posters to try to support). But suppose I do leave a group because I, say, don't like the music. Is that legitimate? Obviously it is a pretty shallow reason. At the same time, it's still between me and the Lord. It's not for anyone else to comment on unless I start as discussion about it. Some might scream "Such an attitude will create a free-for-all!" But the only people who say that are those who (1) have an interest in controlling others and (2) who do not trust people to follow the Holy Spirit. Both attitudes are antithetical to the New Testament reality.

Even when we follow leaders it is the Lord who prompts us in real-time to do so. And if he prompts us not to, or we believe he does, we have to obey that leading, not men.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In the case of the LCM, there are plenty of sins they have not reconciled. So that point is moot.

My point is that the very clear rule concerning Christian meetings given to us by both Jesus and the apostles is that if you have an offense with another member you need to first be reconciled before you can partake of the Lord's table. Why doesn't this rule trump all others concerning meeting?

There is no rule about what you should "name" your fellowship, but there is this rule. Why make a huge deal over something that is non existent in the NT while ignoring the one rule that is spoken repeatedly in black and white?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is essentially the way every expositor has interpreted this.

They have also interpreted these parties as the root of denominations, and that includes WL.

But I have a couple of questions.

1. Suppose they didn't have a single meeting place where they all could meet. That seems like a very reasonable question since this is the case today. Would these various meetings be homogenous, or would they separate based on their parties? We already know as Ohio has brought up that their Lord's table meetings were in disarray due to the factions and parties. That is a direct reference to the fact that the divisions were visible in the way they met.

In contrast to the idea of different factions meeting separately to others, I believe this is more like an ecumenical church assembly where everyone came together to worship but everyone kept to their "corner of the room".

As Gill's commentary alludes to, if Paul said they could eat however they wanted "in their own homes" and the issues arose when they assembled together, this seems to preclude any notion that they were meeting in separate houses based upon factional preference. These issues were a problem when people of different factions came together for worship.

It is possible that they came together in the one place, as Gill believes, or they came together in multiple locations for practical reasons.

In any case, both of these scenarios seem to rule out separation based upon faction. People of different factions were meeting together and this was when the problems arose.

I would think of it as like Catholics and Protestants meeting together either in one central location in the city, or in various locations around the city. In either case, Paul's words applies.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

2. If people were subject to parties, factions and divisions, would that have been expressed in the home meetings? Did all those who "were of Paul" meet together in their home meetings? That seems reasonable to me based on my experience in the church and on internet forums.

I have been to ecumenical services before where the Catholics sit on one side and protestants (etc) on the other. I think it would have been like that. I don't believe things had gotten to the point where the different factions would meet separately, for the primary worship at least. Possibly they met together informally based upon faction, but they did not break the tradition of coming together in one place for worship.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3. We (every Bible expositor and myself) all agree that the major issue addressed in the epistle to Corinth was the parties and factions, yet we also all agree that the epistle was written to all of them (even those who were denominated based on their pet doctrines and favorite apostles). How is that any different from today? Every Christian, regardless of denomination or pet doctrine, feels this epistle was written to them.

Paul's letter was written to all believers in the city, so I agree with that.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

4. When WL says that Corinth is a typical church, just like today, I agree that the "Church in NY" is just like Corinth, it is full of babes in Christ, Christians who are walking like men based on envy and strife. They are denominated based on doctrine, favorite apostles, and wealth. But that doesn't mean that there is a single fellowship meeting in one meeting hall like that, but rather refers to the entire situation in NY when viewed as a whole. So then, do you agree with WL that the church in Corinth is typical to the situation today in NYC in total?

To me it is similar but different. In the time of Paul I believe the factions were not worshiping independently, but becoming denominations would have been the next step. The mistake today is to assume that Paul's words applies to a single denominations/faction, because every church considers itself to be a church and not a sect as they really are, and not to every believer in the city.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Based on that I am questioning whether the term "the church in Corinth" applied to a single meeting hall address or rather was the way Paul addressed all the Christians in the city as a whole. When I read 1Corinth 3 it seems absurd to me that the conclusion of Paul's rejection of names like "of Paul", "of Peter", and "of Christ" is to present a better name of the "church in blank".

Suppose those "of Paul" and those "of Peter" and those "of Christ" met independently of each other. Where do the people meet who are not of those factions and wish to follow Paul's instructions? Can't they refer to themselves as "the church in Corinth" ? This is not to present a "better name" but to have no name and meet as the church in the city not aligned with any faction.