[OBW]

Hope,

I’ve been considering your assessments of James B and of the words written in the BARM by his sons, more particularly Brent. While I seemed to see some uncertainty in how you wanted to consider Brent’s posts, I was reminded of something I read on the BARM that few would have seen.

Outside of the Nee/Lee/LC forum are many others, including one that has a place where people simply drop in quotes that they consider noteworthy. I’ve looked at it a couple of times, and the first time, I saw a comment back by one person to another concerning the person he always quoted, J.P. Rizal. It turns out that Rizal is sort of a folk hero and philosopher of the Philippines, so I looked back at a few of the quotes attributed to him with interest. One caught my eye.

In this one quote (rather lengthy), Rizal said, in short, that the study of truth is like students seated around a statue drawing what they see. Those in the front see best, those behind less so. Behind them are those who must rely on the drawings of others. He suggested that no one could question another’s view because that was what he saw. The problem is in the notion that just because that is what I see does not mean I have seen it all, only that I have seen part very clearly. It may be true that my view is not complete and in that sense is incorrect, but when looking at that small part, it is what I see. Although out of context, it is real.

Then what is correct? When the discussion is “truth,” we seldom consider that only part of the truth is really the truth. It may be true, but it potentially paints an untrue picture. It is only in context with the whole that truth is seen in the pieces of what is true.

My addition to Rizal’s comments would be that the seeker of truth would be one who wants to see more than they already have seen. He would not be frozen to his singular perspective, but desiring to learn the rest of the picture.

I would not say that I have the best view of the LC. I’m not even sure what I think about it at times. Sometimes I think it is the most corrupt thing that ever existed and should be torn down. A minute later I think that merely exposing the corruption of the leadership coupled with some backing away from certain excessively sectarian teachings leaves a decent and vibrant Christian group. But despite some of my harsher rhetoric, I do not pretend to have all the answers or think that the LC is simply a corrupt thing that should be destroyed.

So how do we view the observations of Brent B? I would say that we accept his view as what it is. He grew up in one of the original LC households in the US. He saw the effects of what his dad’s involvement in the “ministry” did to their home life. It may not be the whole story, but I doubt that even he knows the whole story. His words are quite charged. After the childhood he had, what do we expect?

I’m not blaming James, but he may be partly to blame. I’m not saying that what Brent saw was typical. But it was something that flowed out from the ministry in some form.

When looking at the statue that is the LC, Brent B had a front row seat to view a certain portion. It may have been extreme, even for many who think there are extreme problems in the LC. It is obvious that it created a tremendous resentment that flowed out in his posts. But despite his over the top rhetoric, I doubt that he said anything that was not right there on the statue. Few others had that view. We may not like the way he said it. We may think that his manner of speech overstated things. But it is what he saw.

Can we refute it? Probably not. Is it the whole truth? Clearly not. Should we put it into the mosaic of the full description of what the LC was, or at least became? Definitely so. To pass any of it off because of the demeanor of his posts is to fall for one of the common fallacies — shooting the messenger, or ad hominem attack.