Why don't Local Church Members Post Here?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Hi allinclusivechrist, what do you mean by "this is how we should live out Christ"?

How did you come to find this forum and what prompted you to post in the first place?

Glad you are here.

Trapped

I ditto this question. Please tell us more about you and your testimony!

Jesus is Lord.

Greetings from Hamilton, NZ.

I stumbled upon this website due to my curiosity.

Much Grace

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Jesus is Lord.

Greetings from Hamilton, NZ.

I stumbled upon this website due to my curiosity.

Much Grace

I think you've registered since you posted this (aka "SeekingWisdom"). And I think you said you still meet with the LC, right? To me that is fine - the Lord is faithful to show you what He will . . . in His time.

And pursuant to this thread's topic of "Why don't LC members post on here?" I think it's an interesting question that has merit in revisiting. In any case you are posting on here! Of course, compared to a year ago, very few are posting on here, whether they be current LC or ex-LC . . .

[SeekingWisdom]

Yes, that is correct. I am now registered.

From my understanding, when you look at the face of this website you have the following:

* Testimonies of coming out from the LC
* Denouncing of the works of Nee and Lee and even the persons
* LC being a cult

So at first, with the website banner saying "Making sense of the Lord's Recovery Movement", it may seem like a place for purely discussion. But a lot of the threads involve rehabilitation, tips on how to recover from traumatic experiences in the LC, etc. Declaring all the works of Lee (and maybe Nee) should be thrown out. Of course, this may not be the feeling or representation of the all the members but at the face of this website, this is what is presented.

So it would seem to be a hostile environment for those that are still enjoying their time in the LC or do not have anything personally against the LC.

I would like to ask, if someone shared a post about a positive experience or testimony concerning the LC, how many members here would be offended, hold with contempt, or assume that it was fabricated/fake. Or be very suspicious.

Please do not misunderstand. I am not dismissing the experiences and testimonies of those that have suffered in the LD's Recovery. I am merely just presenting a different perspective. Nothing more, nothing less.

I personally have not posted here because I do not know how to contribute. I have a tendency of just observing. But I have recently gained an interest in having a bit of dialogue with the people here.

My standing as a LC member:
I think there are many things wrong with the LC. I think LSM played a huge factor to that problem (along with a number of other things). But I still see the believers here as dear brothers and sisters. As do I see any fellow believer (regardless of whether they are in the LC).

[aron]

Originally Posted by SeekingWisdom

So it would seem to be a hostile environment for those that are still enjoying their time in the LC or do not have anything personally against the LC.

It can be a hostile-seeming environment, I admit. And I've apologised often for my share in the hostility, such as it is. (all my posts should have a long disclaimer about my frailties and lack of standing to judge... I assume it's understood but often it isn't, and even I forget!)

But think about this: the LSM puts out a paper (or used to) called "affirmation and critique", yet if someone critiques them, the critique is called "accusations" and "rebellion" and so forth. So the basis for dialog has been badly damaged. If you can help repair that, that's wonderful. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Originally Posted by SeekingWisdom

I'd like to ask, if someone shared a post about a positive experience or testimony concerning the LC, how many members here would be offended, hold with contempt, or assume that it was fabricated/fake. Or be very suspicious.

I think that we could critique your enjoyment. That's not necessarily contempt. Again, the LSM critiques Christianity, their enjoyment and experience.

Suppose, for example, you said that a Psalm of imprecation was "Christ defeating Satan". Very enjoyable, right? Couldn't I point out that other psalms of imprecation are panned in RecV footnotes as "natural" and "fallen" since, you know, we're supposed to turn the other cheek? Why didn't David turn the other cheek with Goliath? Etc?

If there is inconsistency in the "enjoyment" then others may note that without seeming to be contemptuous. All of us are inconsistent. Christ alone is pure. We really only ask for the privilege of doing unto LSM what they do to everyone else. If that privilege were ever granted then I think the tenor of the discussion would probably change greatly. (but I don't know because permission to discuss is never granted with them).

Originally Posted by SeekingWisdom

Please do not misunderstand. I am not dismissing the experiences and testimonies of those that have suffered in the LD's Recovery. I am merely just presenting a different perspective. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again, nothing wrong with that. But why aren't different perspectives allowed inside the LC?

[Sons to Glory!]

A good observation and well put I think. The LC experiences of those on this forum cover the full spectrum from terrible experiences and therefore all things LC/WL/WN are bad (or the worst); to those whose had many good experiences along with some not so good experiences, and then were lead to leave the LC. There have also been on here, from time to time, a few strong supporters of the LC and who were active in that group. But those folks are generally few . . . their time posting on here continues for a time and then they usually disappear.

I fall into the camp of those who know for certain that the Lord led them to the LC and count gaining many good things from Him there. I praise the Lord for that experience! But I also praise the Lord that He lead me out of the LC a couple decades later. When He led me to where I've been these past 22 years, I saw that there were indeed many fresh riches of Christ in places other than the LC. It was then that He began to show me how much His love for us is the foundation of everything He does. This understanding of His love as His primary motivator is what began to open up scriptures to me like never before. (In the LC we learned about God's eternal purpose, but not so much about how primary His love for us is!)

Regrettably, this forum can be a little like the political situation in this country, that is, greatly polarized with each side often talking past the other . . .

[aron]

Originally Posted by SeekingWisdom

So at first, with the website banner saying "Making sense of the Lord's Recovery Movement", it may seem like a place for purely discussion.

When I asked on this discussion forum, "How is it that some of the RecV Psalms footnotes say that imprecations (cursing, diatribes) are Christ defeating Satan, whilst most Psalms in RecV are footnoted as "fallen", saying we're called to bless, not curse?" the LC-attending poster replied, "Maybe that's the way it is." Some discussion. If you don't help me here, forgive me if I come to my own conclusions.

I asked, "How can a man who violates Paul's word to Titus on an elder having believing children be a spiritual giant, and apostle of the age?" Such a person who's disqualified to be a local church elder shouldn't be para-church leader. But no answers have ever been forthcoming.

I asked about conflict of interest, that a para-church leader (Witness Lee) asked for investments to fund a for-profit business run by family members (Timothy Lee). Not to mention that the company went belly-up and the money disappeared and when asked by erstwhile investors, Lee said, "That's my business". No discussion from the LC attendees. Not one single response that I'm aware of.

Or that women wrote books like "God's Plan of Redemption" by Mary McDonough, sold by LSM and cited as a basis of "The three parts of man", yet "women can't teach", per Paul? Not to mention Margaret Barber, Ruth Lee, Dora Yu, Peace Wang, Jessie Penn-Lewis, Madam Guyon... why the discrepancy of women's roles in the early 'recovery' versus 100 years later? No comments ever came back in answer.

Or that "the economy of God" includes the concept of 'intensification' - where does Paul write of this? John may have referenced it in Revelation 1:4 (or perhaps not), but where did Paul ever reference this? And if Paul didn't teach this in Scripture, why do we think Paul was asking Timothy to make sure this was being taught in Ephesus?

And how come nobody can ask such questions in LC meetings in front of senior brothers and co-workers without being called "negative"? Until someone from the LC addresses these and many more issues, please prepare to have your enjoyment challenged. Hopefully the questions are respectful and not scornful, but be sure that the questions are there.

[SeekingWisdom]

It is not that I believe LSM cannot be critiqued. I agree very much that LSM has a poor attitude towards other Christians. In one of the publications it was written that we should have no attitude of seeing people as simply sinners and Christians. There is no need to mention "Christianity". But countless times have I heard "degraded Christianity" or those "poor Christians" lost in religion. I do not hold the same view as LSM. Unfortunately, many saints subconsciously (or for the really zealous ones consciously) have a condescending attitude towards other believers.

Many times I do question the things in the "ministry" (I prefer to just call it LSM publications), and I do get the weird look from fellow LC members. I appreciate LSM publications but I am deeply concerned about how invasive it has become. And it is used as a tool for control.

Now with the problem involving women/sisters. This is my analysis of how the problem arose.

The leadership value the "vision" to the utmost. So they will do anything to protect it. I remember reading somewhere, Nee or Lee, in the early church life allowed certain sisters to lead. And it became a problem. So as a reaction to this it confirmed their idea that having woman leading is not God-ordained and becomes problematic.

Another example; in the FTTH, they had more relaxed regulations concerning relationships. After relationship problems arose, they began to introduce and enforce strict rules concerning relationships. It was not so much the relationships, but the relationships causing a distraction to the training.

You can see there is a pattern, where a problem occurs, there is a strong reaction to "protect" the vision/recovery. Ironically, even at the expense of the truth and/or the saints.

They are afraid that exposing a certain brothers will damage the recovery. I feel that it is not so much covering the brother, but more protecting this "vision". Thus, explaining the reluctant attitude towards admitting mistakes.

That is just my simplified analysis of the root problems that are in the LC.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SeekingWisdom

The leadership value the "vision" to the utmost. So they will do anything to protect it. I remember reading somewhere, Nee or Lee, in the early church life allowed certain sisters to lead. And it became a problem. So as a reaction to this it confirmed their idea that having woman leading is not God-ordained and becomes problematic.

Another example; in the FTTH, they had more relaxed regulations concerning relationships. After relationship problems arose, they began to introduce and enforce strict rules concerning relationships. It was not so much the relationships, but the relationships causing a distraction to the training.

You can see there is a pattern, where a problem occurs, there is a strong reaction to "protect" the vision/recovery. Ironically, even at the expense of the truth and/or the saints.

They are afraid that exposing a certain brothers will damage the recovery. I feel that it is not so much covering the brother, but more protecting this "vision". Thus, explaining the reluctant attitude towards admitting mistakes.

I think you hit on something here regarding this valuing the vision above all else. That is how I remember the Recovery - all about the vision and God's purpose. As I have conveyed many times on here, the impression I got there was that God was primarily a God of purpose and He would get His purpose no matter what. While there's some real truth to that, and I praise the Lord for seeing that He has a high purpose, what got conveyed was that if you stood in the way of His purpose, He would crush you! This promotes fear.

The proper way of seeing God's purpose is that God is love - HE LOVES US and He has a plan and purpose resulting from His love for us.

Of course, one part of the vision of the Recovery is that His practical purpose is with local churches. Nothing inherently wrong with that statement, as all Christian groups are practically local, but saying you have THE VISION of oneness and therefore others just need to see that vision is most elitist and divisive. And in order for the organization of the LC and LSM to continue, that vision must be protected at all costs, resulting in another manmade division.

[aron]

Originally Posted by SeekingWisdom

Now with the problem involving women/sisters. This is my analysis of how the problem arose.

The leadership value the "vision" to the utmost. So they will do anything to protect it. I remember reading somewhere, Nee or Lee, in the early church life allowed certain sisters to lead. And it became a problem. So as a reaction to this it confirmed their idea that having woman leading is not God-ordained and becomes problematic.

If you attempt to acknowledge shortcomings in the LC as you've done here you won't be treated with contempt and scorn. It's a refreshing change from the "hear no evil" of LC apologists, with the strange juxtaposition of lauding of the early lionesses of the recovery church, followed shortly thereafter by disparaging remarks about "spiritual sisters". The disconnect couldn't be more glaring, and nobody can acknowledge it for fear of being labeled. So everyone sits there and takes it. And what happens to the enjoyment? Diminished significantly, if not removed altogether.

So your ability to acknowledge this is huge. I hope you enjoy your discussion on this forum. I've learned a lot here. Mostly I just use if for a sounding board for ideas. Yes, we often talk past each other but then one feels that one's being heard, which is gratifying. Hoping you get the same experience. As far as the "bitter ex-member" thing there may be truth to that but when people don't get heard they get frustrated. A little acknowledgement goes a long way to healing, and removing bitterness. Blessed are the peacemakers.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SeekingWisdom

Yes, that is correct. I am now registered.

From my understanding, when you look at the face of this website you have the following:

* Testimonies of coming out from the LC
* Denouncing of the works of Nee and Lee and even the persons
* LC being a cult

So at first, with the website banner saying "Making sense of the Lord's Recovery Movement", it may seem like a place for purely discussion. But a lot of the threads involve rehabilitation, tips on how to recover from traumatic experiences in the LC, etc. Declaring all the works of Lee (and maybe Nee) should be thrown out. Of course, this may not be the feeling or representation of the all the members but at the face of this website, this is what is presented.

So it would seem to be a hostile environment for those that are still enjoying their time in the LC or do not have anything personally against the LC.

I would like to ask, if someone shared a post about a positive experience or testimony concerning the LC, how many members here would be offended, hold with contempt, or assume that it was fabricated/fake. Or be very suspicious.

Please do not misunderstand. I am not dismissing the experiences and testimonies of those that have suffered in the LD's Recovery. I am merely just presenting a different perspective. Nothing more, nothing less.

I personally have not posted here because I do not know how to contribute. I have a tendency of just observing. But I have recently gained an interest in having a bit of dialogue with the people here.

My standing as a LC member:
I think there are many things wrong with the LC. I think LSM played a huge factor to that problem (along with a number of other things). But I still see the believers here as dear brothers and sisters. As do I see any fellow believer (regardless of whether they are in the LC).

SeekingWisdom, welcome to the forum -

Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that there have indeed been 1) threads started by members sharing positive experiences (as well as calling this site "negative") and 2) maybe even an actual thread started specifically asking what are some positive things people got from their time in the LC.

There are different ways to share positive experiences. Some ways imply that the negative experiences aren't real, and those will be met with contempt, because they are an attempt to silence and negate and invalidate real pain. Some ways give their own experience which happens to be good, while also acknowledging the bad that others have experienced. I have seen plenty of people agree when the good experiences are obviously truthful or are plainly not intended to send a contrary message about the painful things people have endured.

SW, is there anything specific that caused you to recently gain an interest in having a bit of dialogue here?

I agree there are many things wrong with the LC. My concern is the nature of what is wrong. The things that are wrong, to me, point to a deeper, hidden, systemic and frankly dark core that needs to be brought under the shining of a 10,000 kilowatt bulb. The things that are wrong are an interwoven, interconnected, interdependent, network mesh of deceptively "off" teachings that are just subtly crooked enough to negate the gospel while making the followers think they are extra-specially chosen by God, when really they are just specially deceived.

In the Bible when we are dealing with false doctrines, teachings that lead people astray, false apostles that abuse the sheep, the pattern is repeatedly to do something about it. Teach the healthy things, watch your life and teachings closely, don't be lead astray, don't put up with false apostles, etc... Vengeance is the Lord's, yes. But speaking the truth and calling out sin and darkness is also ours.

[SeekingWisdom]

I read through quite a lot of the material testifying against LSM and the LC. I invested a lot of time reading through testimonies, open letters, and even some recordings. I occasionally check for new threads on this website. All of it was for the sake of drawing a picture of what LSM and LC was, and what it has become. So I didn't bother posting here because my intention initially was not to have a discussion but to investigate into this multifaceted problem and gain understanding of the root of all the problems.

I can't do much to change things in a big way, but hopefully by understanding the problems I could gain some wisdom and live a life that properly expresses Him. And have positive influence to the people around me, especially believers in the LC.

But sorry, I have digressed. To answer your question:
I wasn't too sure what to discuss, or even what and how to reply. Nor did I give it much thought. But as I scrolled down the front page of this website my attention was caught with the question "Why don't Local Church Members Post Here?". It made me think, it might be beneficial for me to have a bit of discussion with the people here. Gain new perspective and some light.

Yes. I agree with you on that. But I lack the wisdom to address this issues in a proper way as a young brother. For me, it does not seem as simple as just exposing the sin and darkness (not too sure if that is what you meant by calling out). Or exposing sin and darkness in such a way that leads to life.

[aron]

Originally Posted by SeekingWisdom

I read through quite a lot of the material testifying against LSM and the LC. I invested a lot of time reading through testimonies, open letters, and even some recordings. I occasionally check for new threads on this website. All of it was for the sake of drawing a picture of what LSM and LC was, and what it has become.

An internet forum may function as an echo chamber in which consensus views get amplified and contrary observations don't get as much traction. To gain a comprehensive picture requires a fair amount of independent searching, which may in turn lead the searcher to find themselves in the minority, or on the outside. Why? Because the echo chamber doesn't want them, either.

But that's an occupational hazard, one perhaps worth the challenge, as different voices need to speak out. Each one has a distinct view, none are entirely useless, nor are any all-encompassing.

Somewhat related, I heard of Shoichi Yokoi, who surrendered to U.S. military in 1972, after hiding in a cave on Guam island for 28 years, waiting for Imperial Japanese Forces to come and rescue him in the glorious victory he'd been promised, and that he and so many gave all to see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoichi_Yokoi

When you invest so much, and expect so much, you may reject evidence to the contrary, even when it piles up that your hopes are vain. Now, some may say this about me, that I believe God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. They'll say, "There's no God", or "Even if God exists why would this Jesus be the Way". Yet I stubbornly persist in my faith.

So even while I commend LC members for their faith, and partly agree, I ask them to consider to what extent their group doesn't accord with the NT or maintain coherence in its own testimony. Where would Mary McDonough be today in the LC? Women can't teach right? Yet her book is offered on LSM websites and her teaching "God's Plan of Redemption" is referred as instrumental to WN and WL's subsequent work. Not to mention Jessie Penn-Lewis, Madame Guyon, Dora Yu, Peace Wang - where would they find room to function in the LC of 2021? Yet they're lauded today as lionesses of the Lord's recovery. Not to mention Ruth Lee, Margaret Barber, Elizabeth Fischbacher (WN's amanuensis who traveled with him to Keswick and transcribed him). Do any notice the obvious contradiction?

How could Paul ask Timothy to make sure to teach a version of God's economy that includes intensification, if John hadn't yet penned his Apocalypse on Patmos?

Why did the pillars in Jerusalem ask Paul to remember the poor, to which he said he was eager, and not, "I don't care for that - I'm only here for God's economy"? What if their request in Galatians 2:10 was part of God's economy? You know, all Jesus' teachings: "Give and it shall be given to you, pressed down, shaken, running over" and "Store up for yourselves treasure in heaven where moths can't eat and rust can't corrupt and thieves can't steal" and "give to those who can't repay you and you'll be repaid in the resurrection"? What if Paul's writings on this theme in 1 Corinthians, Romans, 2 Corinthians (2 chapters!) are on this very subject of God's economy?

How could WL be minister of the age if he didn't control his adult children from abusing the church members? How can you violate Paul's word to Titus (1:6) on local church elders and be a para-church apostle?

Why did "the age turn" when WL passed? Suddenly no more revelation, no more "fresh bread", just curating the deceased MOTA's revelations? The age of spiritual giants ended when WL passed? What Bible verses, if any, were referenced for that bold claim?

Watchman Nee read some 3,000 spiritual classics, so-called. Clearly these were from many sources, not all were MOTAs. Why can't we also read many authors and create our own synthesis? If there's a ministry of the age for each successive generation, why did WN obviously draw on other, non-MOTA sources? Clearly WN violated the "One Publication" principle if he drew on a library of 3,000 books in his spiritual development.

Why was David supposedly wrong to wish his enemies harm in Psalm 3, and yet wishing others harm in Psalm 68 was a type of Christ's victory over Satan? The RecV footnotes are not consistent. Has anyone else noticed this?

I asked some of these questions a while back and an otherwise eloquent LC attendee replied curtly, "Why don't you examine yourself" and "maybe that's how it is". Well, I'm not being promoted as God's oracle, and maybe that's NOT how it is. At some point, the accumulated mass of evidence becomes compelling, that the LC isn't actually what it's presented as. It's neither consistent in its own self-testimony, nor with Scripture, nor with the long record of Christian witness over the centuries.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by SeekingWisdom

From my understanding, when you look at the face of this website you have the following:
* Testimonies of coming out from the LC
* Denouncing of the works of Nee and Lee and even the persons
* LC being a cult

Firstly, thank you so much for coming to our forum and registering. Please forgive me for not welcoming you sooner.

Your critique of our little forum is legitimate and certainly understandable. Conversely, I hope and trust that God would show you that many of the testimonies and critiquing by the former Local Church members here are also legitimate and worthy of your thoughtful consideration.

So it would seem to be a hostile environment for those that are still enjoying their time in the LC or do not have anything personally against the LC.

Again, a legitimate and understandable concern for someone in your position. Yet I must tell you that it would probably seem a lot less of a hostile environment for current members if they would come and take advantage of the opportunity for open discussion that this venue provides. And I probably don't have to remind you that no such opportunity or venue is provided by the powers that be there in Anaheim.

I would like to ask, if someone shared a post about a positive experience or testimony concerning the LC, how many members here would be offended, hold with contempt, or assume that it was fabricated/fake. Or be very suspicious.

Again, this is an open forum. So long as the rules of the forum are followed, positive testimonies are welcomed! What I can't guarantee you is that some of the former LC members here won't be critiquing, and maybe even give a little push back. Being a longtime former LC member, I do appreciate and understand that it can be very disconcerting and uncomfortable when one's testimony is not welcomed with a round of hearty "AMEN"s. And so long as this is understood then all will be well with all concerned.
-

[SeekingWisdom]

It's good to be here, thanks for the welcome.

I am personally not critiquing the website, I am just merely stating my observations and providing a possible insight as to why the LC members may not want to post here. I could also be way off.

For me, I normally do not get involved with online discussion forums. I think there is some inertia to become involved in something like a forum. People tend to just lurk anonymously rather than contribute because it takes a bit of effort.

I don't look for "Amens" or confirming words. Nor do I avoid critiquing, I welcome it. So if anything I say is inaccurate, do point it out please.

Now to address some of the issues that @aron pointed out.

I believe that WL mishandled the financial matters and that is probably an understatement. I see it as something that is quite scandalous because WL is a figure of great influence. I do not think that anyone should involve the church for personal financial ventures. From what I have observed, it seemed like WL had become commercially minded with the excuse of being pragmatic/practical. And he downplayed the matter, or at the very least in his mind, it was a matter of little significance; just a minor hiccup.

If you have read the transcript (from the call concerning Daystar) and even the way the brothers speak to and how they refer to WL, shows they had a deep respect for WL. Along with their great appreciation for what WL has seemingly done for them, they were willing to probably overlook or remain ignorant to the situation. Probably easier for the brothers that were not directly involved with the matter. To give an analogy, I guess you can imagine someone that you hold to the highest regard, with much respect, ends up doing something questionable. Would you not be somewhat reluctant to address this problem. Would you not hope that it was simply a misunderstanding or something that could not be helped (unforeseeable risk). From the transcript, you can tell the brother was desperately hoping that WL would either admit the mistake or just be transparent. Now I am not justifying the actions of overlooking the issue. Just providing may be a new perspective.

Concerning the one publication work. Yes there is a conflict of interest. Members are free to read from other sources but it is repeated again and again that you will be wasting your time. That WL and WN has already done the work and have extracted the "cream of the crop" from the wide selection of Christian books so no need to look further. Not all members have this view, but this is the widely accept view concerning reading from other sources.

Now from my point of view, I consider LSM and the local churches to be separate entities. And I hope that one day, there would be a proper separation. We get statements like LSM is just a publication office but obviously it has been integrated deeply into the LC, especially in the bigger localities.

One of the bigger problems that I have faced recently is the fact that people, and unfortunately those that are in influential positions have a tendency of speaking with inaccuracies. What I mean is that they say things that they don't actually mean. So misunderstandings are common. I understand we can make a mistake in our speaking but saints that are teaching others or speaking in a position of influence should be careful with how they handle they truth and how they convey it. Sometimes some of the trainers sacrifice the accuracy of the truth they are trying to convey for the sake of making a point which may not even be that relevant. (P.s. this is a problem in the LC that I am facing).

I am not too sure what you were trying to get at with "humankind were perfected" comment. If you could elaborate/clarify it would be much appreciated.

And yes, there are inconsistencies in the ministry books. I acknowledge that. So as I said, I only take what I think is valuable.

[aron]

Originally Posted by SeekingWisdom

I don't look for "Amens" or confirming words. Nor do I avoid critiquing, I welcome it. So if anything I say is inaccurate, do point it out please.

I also welcome you and get your motives. Although I like 'amens' I don't need them. It's a good exercise to write publicly and think aloud as it were*, and to accept others' critiques.

Originally Posted by SeekingWisdom

I'm not too sure what you were trying to get at with "humankind were perfected" comment. If you could elaborate/clarify it would be much appreciated.

I was playing on James Madison's thought [Federalist Papers] that if men were angels, then government would be unnecessary. But men are not, so government, constituted with corrupted men, tends to corruption itself. Thus, said JM, there must be checks and balances. With religious organisations, we begin with good intentions. But eventually, because humankind isn't perfected, those well-meaning entities become the antithesis of their original purpose. So there must be transparency, accountability. (In WL's organisation there's been neither, so forgive us if we suspect the worst.)

Suppose we see people in Uganda without running water, and say, "Let's create a group to raise money, go over and help." All well and good, and some may do just that. But others may raise millions and years later we hear that they pad expenses, have luxurious offices and country club memberships. And three wells got dug. So $46 million dollars got raised and three wells got dug and 45.995 million got siphoned off by the family of the founder.

If you think I'm overboard, see KP Yohannon and Gospel for Asia. It reeks. (and now he's tight with Hank Hanegraaf, what a surprise)

Regarding tolerance and/or deference with Daystar in particular, I see three types of enabling, or lack of accountability. First, as you noted, those who hold leaders in regard because of position. The NT says that believers should respect those in authority, both religious and secular (not as man-pleasers but respecting God's ordering).

Then there's the intimidation factor, as ones who speak up get expelled from the assembly, and publicly reviled. Last, there's corruption, as followers who pushed to have Daystar [i.e. Lee family] loans forgiven are now on LSM payroll, as are their family members. I can't prove a causal connection but that's the impression.

Maybe Ravi Zacharias started off meaning to serve God, but look how it played out - even his family got sucked into the money/power/abuse vortex and tried to cover him after the lid blew off. It's not surprising, knowing humanity, yes even Christian humanity. Jim Bakker also began with good intentions, a genuine convert with a heart for the flock. But once on television the money began to flow, and ''here a little, there a little''...it goes to order, and to disorder.

*My verse for this sort of discussion, of multiple competing options being played out, is Acts 15:7. There was diversity of view, but one accord in fraternity.