Did Pr. Yang really say he was "repulsed" by visions of blood in the water? Reviewing the Case Against YM Yang: Part 3

For context behind this posting, please read the first post in this series. 

Next, we look at an extract from RAWLS’ blog regarding YM teachings on Song of Songs《雅歌》台北講座的三大[否定], 06/23/2013

1. There is one particular passage from YM that upsets me the most. He says, “In the past the frequent testimonies of water turning into blood repulsed me greatly. What is this testimony for? After listening to it once or twice, after three times I get very agitated inside. What has our church changed? God has not changed in this particular sign and wonder. Is the relationship that Jesus has with you just like this?”

2. The precious blood of Jesus and His redemption when seen in baptism is vividly portrayed before us, even if it is repeatedly shown to us. Should such repeated signs repulse you? Shouldn’t the Holy Spirit witness to the blood, water and Spirit that work during baptism itself? When you see a vision of the precious blood during baptism, this is out of the usual – should it repulse you?

Analysis: I believe that perhaps YM meant to say that some believers just like to take a look if they can see the water turn into blood. If you build your relationship with the Lord just based on visions, then this is not good. We do not encourage believers to go to baptism just to see visions. However, we will not be repulsed if people bear testimony that water turns to blood. A vision is not something that you will see just because you want to. Since God allows a person to see the vision, to testify that baptism in living water has the efficacy of the Lord’s blood, why are you repulsed if you hear about it? Unless this is a false testimony or has gone against the teaching of the Scriptures?

I almost don't want to dignify this point with a response because at this point it was abundantly clear to me that this person "RAWLS" was just on a fishing expedition looking for ways to discredit Pr. Yang. But in the interest of completeness I'll address it.

I actually had to search really, really hard to find out where this point was made. It turns out it's in this audio, at the 12:31 mark. 

The implication of both commentators is that in this video Pr. Yang was "repulsed" by those who testified that they had seen the blood of Jesus in the waters of baptism and that he was "repulsed" by the message.

That sounds horrible, right?

Well, I listened to it myself. I invite you to as well.  For those of you who don't speak Chinese, here is my best attempt to transcribe it in English. If I got any point wrong, please correct me. Otherwise, please read it in its entirety:

It used to be that each and every time we baptized people we'd line up a bunch of people who'd seen visions of blood in the water. After a while I found myself developing an aversion to this practice. It got to the point where I as a minister really didn't want to hear any more of these testimonies. Because I almost got the sense that it encouraged behavior where brothers and sisters would rush to the baptismal site to try to get the "good seats" so they could witness the water turning to blood.

I don't remember the exact baptism, I think it might have been in New York, where a young graduate student stood next to me. On the lectern I asked, "Did anyone witness the blood turning into water?". Wow, one after another there was a long line of people who came up. The first person said "Thank God, I saw the precious blood of Jesus in the water". Then the next person came up with the exact same testimony. "Thank God, I saw the precious blood of Jesus in the water". And then I asked myself, what are we accomplishing here? What's the purpose of having all these testimonies?

After hearing all these testimonies I turned to the student next to me. He was a big strapping man in his twenties. I asked him, "You were just baptized, what were your impressions?". Before I could even finish my question this big guy's tears started to flow. Filled with emotion and wonderment he said to me, "I could feel my whole heart…brighten."

But no one asked him to testify because he hadn't seen the water turn red.

When I started to minister in Paris, each and every time we'd baptize there'd be many who saw the water turn red. Don't get me wrong, as a minister I am very happy this happens. But after I heard these testimonies shared with the congregation one time, two times, three times, I admittedly started to feel annoyed again. And so I asked the congregation, "each time you hear these testimonies, does it help the church improve?" And if the church doesn't improve because of it, what's the point?

What is the purpose when God shows you visions? Is it just so God can put on a show for you? Or isn't it to help you improve? And yet we'd gotten to a point where these testimonies had gotten almost routine. After hearing the same testimony, "I witnessed the blood of Jesus in the water", it's gotten to the point where as congregations we almost become desensitized to it.

Imagine if one day you saw a little girl cut her hand and told her mother about it. What would the reaction of the mother be? Would she simply turn to you and proclaim, "I witnessed the blood of my daughter"? Of course not! Once the mother saw her daughter's blood, she'd be overwrought with emotion. You could see the totality of the love this mother has for her daughter in her reaction.  

Then why is it that when you hear members going up and saying "I saw the blood of Jesus in the water" you find yourself not having that reaction?

Whenever we go through a period of time where people do not see the blood in the water I observe something else happening. You don't see people scrambling the baptismal site to find good seats in case they see the blood in the water. Instead, they watch the person getting baptized.

They witness someone who is dead, a sinner, arrive to the baptismal site and go down to the river. This person is baptized In the Name of Jesus Christ. And then moments later that person is brought to life. And as they walk back up they are a new child of God who is blameless. 

And isn't this the true miracle?

I listened to this more than ten times to make sure I got it right. I invite you to as well. While individual words in Chinese can be translated to mean many different things in a vacuum, when I hear the entire context of his talk nowhere did I hear Pr. Yang say that he "despised" those who testified nor was he "repulsed" by their testimony. But my Chinese isn't very good, so perhaps "RAWLS" or Pr. Chin can point out to me exactly where I might have missed this?

Pr. Yang's point here is a recurring theme in many of his sermons. And it talks about dead faith, routine faith, habitual faith, rote faith.

Is anything he said above wrong?

I remember back in the 1970's it was all the rage after baptisms to have lines of people coming up to the pulpit to talk about how they saw the blood in the water. I remember hearing them and then each time, as a child, going to the baptismal site and hoping beyond hope that I could see it too. I think there were times I even prayed that I could see it. Why? Because it sounded like a cool thing to be able to see, and as a child I was admittedly a little envious of those who got to see it. Yes, even then I knew the words Jesus had spoken to Thomas about how those who did not see and still believed were blessed. But I wanted to be one of those who came up to the pulpit too.
 

I remember a situation where it got a little ugly. In particular there was one church where one summer more than a dozen youth, one after another, testified about seeing blood in the water. We learned after the fact that while some of them were speaking truthfully, there were some who had felt compelled to fabricate their stories. Even as a child back then I knew that something wasn't right. I didn't blame these youth for doing what they did, but I felt that there was something in our church culture that made them feel they had to lie about it. Somehow, granted in a very subconscious way, it almost felt as a church that we were celebrating those who were testifying more than the one whose blood they had testified to seeing.

As sad as it to say, as I got older I listened for these testimonies but for different reasons. I wanted "proof" from God that He was still with the church. But when I think about it, these motives are incorrect too. They focused completely on my lack of faith in the church leadership and not at all on my faith in Christ. 

So let's talk about whether his point is a valid one. Is his message really a "deviant" opinion? I don't think so and here's why.

Just because God has revealed something to someone it doesn't mean automatically that it's mandatory that this person needs to stand in front of the congregation to report it.

Pr. Yang's message is really just an application of 1 Corinthians 14:26. What is the difference between two or three people who speak in a tongue without anyone to interpret and two or three people who share their testimony of seeing blood in the water to a congregation who has heard the same testimony so many times it they no longer has any meaningful impact on them? In both cases it's not something that edifies the listeners.

Wouldn't it be better for these people to share their testimonies among a small group of people, perhaps new believers or visitors, rather than the whole congregation each and every time? Or just to reflect upon what they received from God and use it to help edify themselves? Wouldn't it be more useful for the congregation instead of hearing someone for the umpteenth time say they saw blood in the water, to instead focus on what was really the meaningful thing to have happened during the baptism—the miraculous transformation the baptism had on someone's life?

Good people can agree or disagree on these points, but to call them "heresy" and "deviant", I'm sorry, I don't see it.