Manual Of Christian Reformed Church Government Types Of The WorldA Defense of Seventeen Quotations from the Ministry of Witness Lee. PREFACEThroughout the history of the church, many scholars have contributed to our understanding and appreciation of the Bible, the Christian faith, and church history. We are grateful to the Lord for the labors and insights of such faithful stewards of the truth. However, at times some have misused their scholarly credentials to pass off superficial research as informed opinion and in doing so have misrepresented others’ beliefs and practices to a trusting public. To do so is to render a great disservice to Christ and His church. The designation “scholar” suggests that one is engaged in factual, unbiased research and is faithful to represent accurately the sources consulted in the course of research. Such is the minimum standard that secular scholars are expected to maintain before the academic community, but the standard for Christian scholars should be even higher, as they should be bound by conscience to deal with others fairly and righteously in the sight of God. Those who call themselves Christian scholars should adhere to the highest standard of professional conduct, including performing direct, primary research when possible and providing an accurate, balanced representation of their subjects. In early 2. 00. 7 a group of “evangelical Christian scholars and ministry leaders”1 posted an open letter. Internet calling on the leadership of Living Stream Ministry (LSM)3 and the local churches to “disavow and cease to publish” certain statements made by Witness Lee. Kids must have the help they need. River City Reformed Presbyterian Church. Andrews Anglican Church. Christian Leadership Is Simple! This does not mean easy. We may follow all the right principles and things still not work out.
Manual Of Christian Reformed Church Government Types In The WorldWe provide excellent essay writing service 24/7. Enjoy proficient essay writing and custom writing services provided by professional academic writers. The Manual 2016 The United Church of Canada/L’Église Unie du Canada. The sole documentary support given for the open letter was a series of short quotations from the ministry of Witness Lee. All the quotations were presented apart from their original contexts, which created a very distorted and unbalanced impression of Witness Lee’s teaching. To those familiar with Witness Lee’s teaching it was evident that the real purpose of the letter was not to induce the leadership of LSM and the local churches to disavow certain teachings of Witness Lee. Rather, its goal was to turn fellow believers away from the ministry of Witness Lee and to dissuade them from having fellowship with the believers meeting in the local churches. We realize that many of the signers of the open letter have not had extensive exposure to the teachings of Witness Lee and the local churches. However, by attaching their names, their credentials, and the names of their institutions to the open letter, they are using their scholastic prestige to lend a perceived authority to the letter’s contents. Thus, they bear a responsibility that the letter be accurate, fair, and balanced. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect them to respond when errors or imbalance are brought to their attention. They should be concerned when informed that quotations taken out of context have presented a distorted view that has exposed others to unwarranted censure. Sadly, this has not been the case. In February 2. 00. LSM and the local churches posted a brief response addressing the open letter’s concerns in a clear and direct manner. This brief response was sent with personal letters to most of the signers of the open letter. Many of these letters explicitly invited the recipients to engage representatives of LSM and the local churches in dialogue. Only two signers responded, and both dismissed our appeal without further research or consideration of the issues. When our brief response was made available, two things were promised: a longer response treating the broad theological issues raised by the open letter and a response dealing with the specific quotations presented out of context in the open letter. The longer response was originally published on the Internet in December 2. Both the brief and longer responses are contained in Volume 1 of this series. In this volume we offer responses to the out- of- context quotations themselves. In December 2. 00. Christian Research Institute (CRI) devoted an issue of its Christian Research Journal to a reassessment of the teachings and practices of Witness Lee and the local churches. The cover of the issue declared, “We Were Wrong,” in reference to CRI’s critical stance dating back to the 1. The findings presented in the Journal were the culmination of a six- year primary research project. When we learned in the late fall of 2. CRI planned to publish its new findings, we withheld publication of this volume to give CRI’s reassessment a chance to stand on its own and to allow the signers of the open letter time to reconsider the issues so ably addressed by CRI. Following the publication of the Journal, CRI President Hank Hanegraaff and the Journal’s Editor- in- Chief Elliot Miller discussed CRI’s findings on two broadcasts of the Bible Answer Man radio program. While most responses to the Journal and the radio broadcasts have been positive, one critical response was published in February 2. Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, two signers of the open letter. The Geisler/Rhodes response was posted first on Geisler’s personal website, subsequently on the website of Veritas Seminary (which Geisler co- founded), and eventually on the open letter website. This latest posting links all those whose names are included as signatories on the open letter with Geisler and Rhodes’ conclusions. Such an implicit endorsement of the serious errors in truth and scholarship in Geisler and Rhodes’ response reflects poorly on the open letter signers. In fact, even the open letter itself does not represent the views of all its purported signers. In an article responding to Geisler and Rhodes in a subsequent Journal, Hank Hanegraaff wrote, “The first two scholars I called told me they were not aware of the Open Letter, did not endorse its conclusions, and never knowingly lent their names to it.”8 Thus, Hanegraaff concludes, “Given our research thus far, there is reason to suspect that the list of signatories has been inflated.”9 While encouraged by these indications, we earnestly desire that those whose names remain as endorsers of the open letter will be persuaded by conscience to weigh the allegations in the open letter in light of our responses and CRI’s in- depth reassessment. It is important that the Christian public be informed concerning the issues raised in the pages of this volume. We hope that fair- minded and discerning Christian readers will see that, contrary to the perception the open letter hopes to cultivate, our teaching is well within the boundaries of the common faith. We also believe that those who call themselves “Christian scholars and ministry leaders” and represent themselves as authorities by drawing on the reputations and prestige of the institutions that employ them have a particular responsibility to uphold a high standard of integrity in scholarship and Christian conduct. This volume documents an abusive misrepresentation of the ministry of Witness Lee. As such, it sounds a broader call to the community of Christian scholars and ministry leaders to insist upon a higher standard of scholarship in the conduct of Christian apologetics. It is our sincere hope that the response contained in this volume would resonate with the Christian consciences of our readers and with those of the signers themselves. We reiterate our willingness to engage all earnest lovers of the truth in open dialogue and look to our Lord that He would grant us opportunity to enter into more meaningful fellowship with our fellow believers in Christ. Benson Phillips Dan Towle Andrew Yu Chris Wilde. August 2. 01. 0On the Trinity, God’s Full Salvation, and the Church: A Defense of Seventeen Quotationsfrom the Ministry of Witness Lee. INTRODUCTIONIn early 2. Christian scholars and ministry leaders” posted on the Internet an open letter to the leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the “local churches.” In the letter they called for our disavowal and withdrawal of a number of quotations which they extracted and published in isolation from the ministry of Witness Lee. We have previously responded to that open letter, first in brief and later in detail, giving a full defense of our beliefs, which have been grossly misrepresented by quotations taken out of context from Witness Lee’s ministry. While we have made clear in our previous responses our position on the critical issues of the Christian faith that the open letter calls attention to, we promised an explanation of the quotations themselves, and here we are pleased to offer one. The quotations, in isolation and ganged together as they are in the open letter, give a shocking impression that Witness Lee held notions which “appear to contradict or compromise essential doctrines of the Christian faith,” as the signers contend. However, the impression made by this juxtaposition of short quotations does not fairly or accurately represent the actual beliefs of Witness Lee and of us in the local churches. But the quotations stand there in the open letter apart from their proper contexts; thus, they now require this explanation. Before examining the quotations, however, we should consider some general points about how the quotations were presented by the signers of the open letter. Hopefully, this will enable us to accurately assess the signers’ intent and what we should make of their intentions. Identifying the Signers’ Intended Complaints against Us. The signers of the open letter present the quotations from Witness Lee’s ministry without explaining how the quotations allegedly contradict the Christian faith. The seventeen quotations are arranged under the headings “On the Nature of God,” “On the Nature of Humanity,” and “On the Legitimacy of Evangelical Churches and Denominations,” but other than these general rubrics, no precise complaint is lodged against any of the quotations. The signers apparently believe that what is to be condemned in each quotation is self- evident. Thus, it is left to us to make explicit here what the signers have failed in courtesy to identify themselves.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
August 2017
Categories |