YM最原始的罪狀：第21號提案

These are the original charges against YM that were submitted on 22 March 2012 at 10:30 and discussed at 13:30 on the same day.
Please compare them with the statements that the IA has been issuing one after another today - it will be apparent how different the various versions are one from another!
YM’s replies are in purple.

Proposal No. 21: To examine whether it is suitable for Preacher Yuh-Ming Yang to remain in his office as preacher (submitted by the Standing Committee).
Statement:
Based on the necessities of its work, the IA has ordained IA preachers, whose main responsibilities are to: preach the truth in areas under the IA, pastor the believers, set up churches and edify the members.

Pr. YM Yang has been ordained as an IA preacher; he should therefore perform these duties which have been entrusted to him.

In recent years, despite the IA’s love, guidance and advice, whether given privately or through official documents, the adverse consequences of Pr. Yang’s ministry have not only not been curbed, but have been getting increasingly serious. From Pr. Yang’s treatises and sermons and from the letters from various countries, it has been discovered that Pr. Yang has deviated in two basic points:

(1) the truth: he claims and preaches theses such as the self-existence of Satan, that it is not necessary to speak in tongues to be filled with the Holy Spirit, etc.

(2) the organization: he does not submit to the postings assigned by the IA and the standards set forth by the IA.

(Does YM propose that “it is not necessary to speak in tongues to be filled with the Holy Spirit” or that “after baptism, those who have yet to receive the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues may also be filled with the Holy Spirit”?)

Recently, Pr. Yang has been continually spreading confusing and misleading information destructive to the church on the internet, and has seriously affected the image of the church.

In order to uphold the truth and maintain the system of organization of the church so as to strengthen the foundations of the church and edify the believers spiritually, the IA EXCO ought to examine whether it is suitable for Pr. Yang to continue in the office of IA preacher. Some of the relevant issues are highlighted below:

I) The proposal, “handling of the accusations made by Pr. YM Yang”, was discussed during the third meeting of the 10th IA Executive Council held in March 2010. All the IA EXCO members unanimously decided that Pr. Yang should adhere to the following points:
1. Believe that the God we worship is the only self-existent being, and completely do away with the misconception that Satan is self-existent.
2. It is an article of faith of this church that in the era of the New Testament, receiving the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues is the basic prerequisite for being filled with the Holy Spirit.
3. For the sake of the unity of the church, he should stop spreading negative information about the IA amongst the believers.
4. IA preachers ought to submit to the postings and standards specified by the IA Executive Council.

(This so-called “handling of the accusations made by Pr. YM Yang” was put forward by Yung-Ji Lin himself! It would be very simple to have this matter clarified: ask the IA office to provide proof that YM Yang submitted to the EXCO a proposal concerning “accusations”! Over the past few years, fellow workers in the IA who have control over the issuing of official documents and meeting agendas have used the simplest and most effective of methods to deal with YM Yang: the extensive circulation of official documents (e.g., the numerous documents accusing YM Yang of continually preaching on the self-existence of Satan) that are completely without foundation, with the aim of turning oft-repeated untruths into truths, and the submission of proposals under another’s name so as to achieve one’s ends by holding meetings.)

II) In March 2010, apart from giving Pr. Yang standard rules by which he should abide, the IA EXCO, out of love, even gave him the positive and constructive opportunity to examine himself, repent and to start anew. They issued a letter to the Taiwan GA (letter no. 10-027) in the hope that they would be able to show their care and concern.
Taiwan GA arranged for Pr. Yang to be in Dalin church from 1 June to 31 July 2010, to be cared for by his co-workers. During this time, not only did Pr. Yang not show any remorse, he declared to others that he was under “house arrest” in Dalin church. This caused believers who were unaware of the actual situation to harbor misunderstandings, dissatisfaction and criticism toward the church.

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/58748694/%E8%AA%AA%E8%AC%8A%E8%80%85.pdf contains evidence explaining the above. Reminder: very sharp words are used whenever YM is mentioned in the IA’s materials; for example, the word “accusations” in the section above, and the phrase “did not show any remorse” in this paragraph. Yet descriptions concerning the IA itself are full of words like “love”, “positive”, etc.!)

III) In March 2011, at the 2nd session of the 10th World Delegates Conference (WDC), the co-workers concerned spoke candidly in a forum and arrived at a consensus, the outcome of which was reported at the 5th meeting of the 10th Executive Council. Pr. Yang promised to abide by the decisions of the EXCO relating to the handling of matters concerning the truth (letters no. 06-074, 06-084, 07-036, 10-22), and to apologize for the turbulence that had arisen during the disputes.

(YM Yang’s so-called “promise” was written by Dn. Bill Tseng; YM Yang looked over a draft of it. At the time, YM was alert to the possibility that this document could in future be used as a basis for claiming that “YM apologized for the theories he advocated”. He therefore specifically asked Bill Tseng to add the words ”for the turbulence that has arisen”. As Lin at the time had already agreed to provide a written apology to Paris, YM also agreed to apologize for the “disturbances” that had arisen over the past few years as a result of the disputes. In the end, it turned out that Lin had lied to Paris. See next paragraph.)

(The World Delegates Conference was held in March 2011. The European delegate put forward a proposal to look into the catastrophe created by the IA’s “concern” over continental Europe. In spite of this, the chief administrator deliberately omitted to include this proposal in the conference agenda! - the secret intention being to resolve the matter in the IA EXCO meeting, which the European delegate was unable to attend. YM reminded the IA EXCO members that if they were to use such tactics, they would have trouble explaining themselves if, during the meeting, the European delegate were to inquire as to whether his motion had been dropped! The senior administrative officials were alarmed and began to engage in intensive consultation with the European delegate. YJ Lin even agreed to send a letter of apology to Paris church. Who would have thought that, once the meeting was over and the pressure was off, this would all be forgotten! Not only did YJ Lin fail to fulfill his promise of sending an apology, he actually wrote a letter to Paris church claiming that it was all YM’s fault! Thereafter, Paris church lost all trust in the IA. It is impossible to fool anyone over this story as there were many people who were present and who took part in the consultation.)

Who would have known - after the March 2011 EXCO meeting, Pr. Yang did not comply with the terms agreed to in the meeting. He has erred in the following ways:

(True enough! “Disturbances” have been turned into “problems with the truth”!)

1. Continues to propagate the theory of the self-existence of Satan.
(Please can the IA give one instance of YM continuing to propagate this thesis after March 2011! Just one! Over the past seven years, the IA has extensively circulated official documents (e.g., the numerous documents accusing YM Yang of continually preaching about the self-existence of Satan) that are completely without foundation, with the aim of turning oft-repeated untruths into truths. It has been most painful to see how the IA has turned the temple of God into a house of lies by such means.)

2. Continues to propagate the thesis that it is not necessary to speak in tongues to be filled with the Holy Spirit.
(Does YM propose that “it is not necessary to speak in tongues to be filled with the Holy Spirit” or that “after baptism, those who have yet to receive the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues may also be filled with the Holy Spirit”?)

3. Continues to spread incorrect and negative information about the IA.
(Please give actual examples of this “incorrect” information! In contrast, the IA is continually disseminating slanderous documents about YM all over the world.)

4. Does not submit to the postings assigned by the IA and the standards set forth by the IA.
(Please give actual examples! In over twenty years, exactly when did YM not comply with the postings of the IA over the course of his work?)

5. Has been unwilling to comply with IA’s written request to submit, in accordance with his duties as a resident preacher, a report regarding Paris church’s illegal termination of the two deacons.
(This is even more ridiculous. Before Paris had terminated these two deacons, the IA had already intervened illegally; now they are asking Paris church to explain themselves! Paris was very surprised that the IA had intervened without just cause. They issued a letter, CDP 2011-004, to the IA, stating that it seemed to have become usual practice for the IA to show no respect towards the Paris church board, and that until such time as the IA provided Paris church with a written statement indicating that they would change their way of doing things, Paris church would not respond to the IA.
Left without a choice, the IA instead ordered the resident preacher, YM, to submit a report. On 19 August 2011, YM replied to the IA, requesting that the IA first adhere to the church’s regulations and respect the right of all IA EXCO members to inspect and copy all documents at any time; YM then asked the IA to forward all the confidential reports and letters that had led to the chaos in Paris and French-speaking Africa to him, since he was an IA EXCO member. If the IA had first fulfilled their duties according to the church’s regulations, the reasons for the termination of the deacons would have been self-evident!
In the end, the IA failed to comply with regulations by not responding to IA EXCO member YM’s request. Therefore, as things stand, it is the IA itself which has first acted illegally and owes YM a letter of explanation. Why is the IA now blaming YM for being unwilling to report back to it?)

IV) After the March 2011 EXCO meeting, not only did Pr. Yang not submit to the postings and standards of the IA, he brazenly attacked the IA. Below are some major examples:

1. In October 2011, Pr. Derren Liang asked Eld. Fu-Ming Che to try to dissuade Pr. YM Yang from entering China; being under the IA and not having been posted there by the IA, Pr. Yang was told that he should not involve himself in the affairs of the local churches in China and affect their evangelistic and pastoral work in this way. However, Pr. Yang willfully insisted on going.

(YM entered China for the first time in eleven years, having taken leave to visit the families of the Chinese brethren from Paris. From then on, all the blame for the chaos of the Chinese churches was cast upon YM. Consider this mystery: shouldn’t the IA instead be angered over the fact that YM had discovered that there was serious confusion in the Chinese churches and that the IA EXCO members had been kept in the dark about it for such a long time? Readers should be aware by now that ever since YM entered China, the IA has stopped using reasons such as “there’s no freedom, you will be watched, you must keep a low profile”, etc. to try to prevent brethren from approaching the Chinese churches. However, when IA personnel go to China, they make a big show of it and are received like VIPs, with crowds lining the streets, and all this is even posted on the internet! For the past few years, the IA’s reports on the divine work in China must have contained many lies. http://www.sharingbiblewords.com/ymyang/cms/?q=node/998 ＆ http://www.sharingbiblewords.com/ymyang/cms/?q=node/996）

2. Towards the end of December 2011, the IA had still not given up trying to redeem Pr. Yang through its love and concern. Thus, it specially entrusted Eld. Heng-Tao Chen with the task of advising and encouraging Pr. Yang, hoping that he would turn back to the Lord.

(Is this how it was? One need only ask Eld. Chen himself. Over the past few years, the IA has stopped Eld. Chen from coming to continental Europe on several occasions. As a result, this time, it was Paris church itself that had specially invited him over! Who would have guessed that when Eld. Chen was here, IA’s “Care Group for Pioneering Areas” actually secretly encouraged the Spanish brethren not to receive Eld Chen and his party! Thus, when Eld Chen went to Spain, all the brethren hid themselves away and would not come out to meet him! During his time in continental Europe, Eld. Chen told five of his co-workers that he was greatly saddened by the chaos within the IA, and would certainly not endorse the actions of any person lightly without being aware of the actual state of affairs. Thus, after Eld. Chen returned to Taiwan, he asked YJ Lin and others to invite YM back to Taiwan to meet with them to try to straighten out the facts before the March 2012 meeting in Korea. Lin refused. Another elder asked that Lin not act as chair of the meeting in Korea. Lin agreed to this, but he refused there and then when YM reminded him of this in Korea. Following this, he went everywhere claiming that “everyone” had asked him to chair the meeting! Even if this were the case, don’t the IA’s rules of procedure clearly stipulate that in cases where a given proposal involves the chairperson, he or she should avoid acting as the chair of the meeting?)

3. In January 2012, Pr. Yang misrepresented and was highly critical of the letter of advice and encouragement which the IA had sent him.
(Please see Proposal No. 9.)

4. In February 2012, in reply to the IA document “Please Provide Guidance to Your Local Members on the Handling of the Confusion Caused by the Online Messages”, Pr. Yang launched an attack on the IA, once again through the mailbox of tjcjane03@gmail.com.
5. In recent months, through believers who have been influenced by him and by using different e-mail accounts each time, Pr. Yang has continually misrepresented the position of the IA and carried out slanderous attacks on it.
14 Dec 2011: tjcjane@gmail.com
4 Jan 2012: tjcjane10@gmail.com
6 Jan 2012: tjcjane01@gmail.com
27 Jan 2012: tjcjane02@gmail.com
16 Feb 2012：tjctrust@sina.com
19 Feb 2012: tjcjane03@gmail.com
2 Mar 2012: tjcjane04@gmail.com
9 Mar 2012: tjctrust@sina.com

(It seems that YJ Lin and others have difficulty believing how many people there are in TJC who have been disappointed by the organization! During the meeting, they seemed to think that YM was masquerading as different users on the HBL website - as long as an article was on the internet, it must have been written by YM!)

V) On 30 January 2012, the IA received a letter from the Board of Ministers of mainland China, in which it was explained that the erroneous words and deeds of Pr. Yang when he entered the country in March 2010 and December 2011 had caused great harm to and had negatively affected the churches in mainland China:
1. Apart from continuing to propagate his thesis on the self-existence of Satan, he caused disunity in the church.

(See! Here we go again! This obsessive-compulsive disorder - characterized by the extensive circulation of official documents (e.g., the numerous documents accusing YM Yang of continually preaching about the self-existence of Satan) that are completely without foundation, so as to turn repeated untruths into truths - is here again!
YM had not entered China in eleven years; how could he have been “continuing” to propagate his thesis? Causing disunity? When YM entered China in March 2010, the churches in China had already been rent by disunity!)

2. Pr. Yang repudiates the church’s system of organization and its rules and regulations; he believes that the organization of the church has nothing to do with salvation, and is opposed to the church’s disciplinary system of excommunication.

(There’s a relationship between the organization of the church and salvation? So, what about the brethren from the churches in China, who are not under any organizations, and who know only the Lord Jesus but are not familiar with the organization and regulations of the church - have they believed in vain? Will they never have the chance to be saved?

… is opposed to the system of excommunication? YM firmly believes that the “final judgment” belongs to the Lord Jesus and not to the TJC! If the TJC thinks that its excommunication is equivalent to the Lord Jesus’ judgment of excommunication, don’t forget that the second half of the verse would imply that whatever the TJC looses on earth will be loosed by the Lord Jesus. Thus, those in the TJC who have the authority to excommunicate (YM was once one of such people), may also at the same time exonerate their own wrongs via the resolutions of a thousand meetings! In the face of the TJC’s decisions to pardon the sins of offenders, it seems that there is not a lot that the Lord Jesus can do. He can only follow in the footsteps of the church! Whoever TJC kills, the Lord kills, and whoever TJC pardons, the Lord pardons. Is it not so? To put it more clearly: those in the higher echelons can wantonly excommunicate an innocent member, A, then decide to pardon their own sin of the gratuitous excommunication of A! As such, the innocent A gets excommunicated by TJC and goes to hell, but the people in the higher echelons who have wilfully transgressed are pardoned and can enter heaven and be glorified! The funny thing is that in IA’s last, last, last statement concerning the termination, the wording was changed to: “Pr. Yang repudiates the church’s system of organization; he believes that the organization of the church has nothing to do with salvation, and openly opposes the church’s disciplinary system during services (leaving out the word “excommunication”!).” Could this be because the senior officials have realized that the workers of TJC are increasingly opposed to the idea of excommunication? Hence, it might not sound convincing enough if it were to be said that YM was opposed to excommunication; they would rather simply leave out the word and fabricate another lie instead, deceiving the public by changing the wording to “YM opposes the... disciplinary system”! And this charge against YM that was in the original resolution of Proposal No. 21 has been deleted in the IA’s “absolutely final version” of the statement! Thus they change one thing after another and add lies upon lies... next time the IA issues a document, could they not be so audacious as to issue it “in the holy name of Jesus”!)

(The senior officials of IA can freely express their own views; there may not be consensus concerning these views and they may even go against the truth, but by issuing official documents, such opinions can instantly be made into articles of faith of the TJC. However, YM has only to say a word for the senior officials to immediately issue official documents labelling his ideas as being “without consensus” and “disallowed”.)

3. Despite having been advised many times by the IA against entering mainland China, Pr. Yang has repeatedly insisted on going there by himself and associating with key workers of Putian District church who have been excommunicated, thus causing many difficulties in the divine work of the mainland Chinese churches.

(http://www.sharingbiblewords.com/ymyang/cms/?q=node/998 ＆http://www.sharingbiblewords.com/ymyang/cms/?q=node/996）

4. Pr. Yang employs improper methods - after secretly making recordings, he distorts and presents only extracts of the information in order to attack and intimidate with ill-intent; such behavior would be condemned in the wider society, what more when the person concerned is a “True Jesus Church preacher”!

(“Attack and intimidate”? Hehe. Whenever the IA talks about YM, the words they use are always so harsh and cutting. Yes, it is controversial to make recordings even when such recordings are not expressly prohibited. But why was YM forced to make such recordings? The reason is simple: for example, in the March 2012 meeting, because no recordings were made, all kinds of inaccurate claims were made afterwards, based solely on a few people’s words and some official documents. One of YM’s difficulties in his many years in the IA has been that “they” often deny the things they have said and done, and moreover, try to make themselves look innocent while they’re at it. YM therefore decided to make recordings so that the temple of God would not become filled with lies. Furthermore, after making a recording, he always truthfully informed people that he had done so. With this evidence, people would no longer be able to evade responsibility for their conduct. Now, they can only claim that the recordings have been excerpted and used selectively. Is this true? Che’s slander in Nanjing about a toothache, HH Ko’s calumny regarding Buddha having a place in YM’s heart, YJ Lin’s issuance of false documents... if any disputes remain over these, all the material can be published in full.)

The Board of Ministers of mainland China hopes that the IA will be able to improve on the management and assignment of preachers so that the fertile ground of the gospel in mainland China will not be trampled upon and destroyed. [Refer to Annex (A).]

(Tian-Nu, a member from China, has explained the matter in the posts below: http://www.sharingbiblewords.com/ymyang/cms/?q=node/998 & http://www.sharingbiblewords.com/ymyang/cms/?q=node/996)

VI) On 9 February 2012, the IA received a letter from the Sabah GA, stating that someone using the pseudonym “TJC Jane” had circulated over the internet letters IA workers had written to the IA. As this matter had involved many believers, the Sabah GA was concerned that it would affect the faith of the believers towards the organization of the church and towards the truth, and thereby cause schisms within the church. Consequently, the Sabah GA sent letters to the local churches telling the believers not to forward or distribute the relevant letters. [Refer to Annex (B).]

Measures to be taken:
To be discussed.

Resolution:

Annex 1: 30 January 2012. Report concerning the negative influences Pr. Yang has had on the mainland Chinese churches.
Annex 2: 9 February 2012. Sabah GA’s method of handling the anonymous letters of IA workers.