Originally Posted by aron
My sense of the chief deficiency in WL’s ministry – and others may see differently – is that he made the Bible about himself, when it’s really about Jesus. WL held WN as de facto Minister of the Age – he called him Seer of the Divine Revelation – and then as WN’s purported close acolyte, WL then became the new Seer, the new MOTA. The believers’ relationship with God was defined by their relationship with him – if they were on the “proper” ground or not, and then if they were “independent” or even worse, “ambitious” or “rebellious”, versus being “one” with “God’s oracle”, and to what degree of “practical oneness” they exhibited. All these factors determined one’s proximity or involvement to the supposed flow from the throne of God.
It was a Chinese [cultural] guanxi network, with a patina of Christianity on top for recruiting purposes. A Caucasian on this forum (DR) wrote “when the Chinese brothers realized I was tight with WL, they completely changed their attitudes towards me and became very deferential.” In a large conference, I personally saw WL publicly calling out TC, who replied “I am ashamed…” and confessed the shorcomings of his local churches. Relationships were strongly mediated by unexamined cultural biases, which determined who’d kow tow to another.
That personal orientation carried into his Bible interpretation, including his version of God’s economy. Its focus was on his own personal experience and enjoyment, his maturity, transformation and glorification. Jesus was reduced to a bit player, an object to be manipulated for personal gain. Yes, there was lip service – “Christ, only Christ” and “Christ is everything” - but the “I” in his text was the putative “New Testament believer” whose experience was the focus of the narrative. That “I” was WN the Spiritual Man, followed by WL and his own disciples.
This resulted in grievous misreadings of text. The OT promise of fealty and obedience often waved away as natural and fallen human attempts to please God, ignoring that the fulfilment was Christ – the NT use of OT makes this second approach plain. See Peter in his gospel message on Psalm 16, for example. The one who delights in God’s law in Psalm 1 – vain, per WL. But Psalm 1 goes to Psalm 2, the reigning King, obviously Jesus Christ per NT usage. And Deuteronomy 17:18-20 tightly pairs the two images, showing the king that loves God’s word and holds it close, and reigns thereby. But, said WL, that person in Deut 17 was the local church elder pray-reading God’s word in the church life! What a tragic opportunity missed.
The phrase “Thy Words were found and I did eat them” – the “I” is Christ, as shown in John’s gospel (4:34). But no, Jeremiah 15:16 to WL was the “NT believer” pray-reading, and John 4:34 showing Jesus the fulfillment was ignored.
|