Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Cox
There is a biblical basis for rejecting the entirety of Witness Lee's Ministry. In a word - leaven.
|
I am going to be a fly in the ointment on this issue. Not because what is behind it is untrue, but because I believe that the point made by saying "leaven" is not simply something bad.
Jesus used leaven in different ways. In one case, the kingdom of God is like leaven (not, at Lee would suggest, like the dough). The point about leaven is not that it is good or bad, but that, metaphorically, it spreads and affects things in a way that is virtually impossible to reverse. And in saying "virtually impossible to reverse," I would suggest that this particular aspect of the metaphor is not generally intended.
The important thing about leaven is that it disappears within what becomes leavened, changing it in the process. If the leaven is the kingdom of God, then the change is positive. If it is the leaven of the Pharisees, then there is clearly a problem.
And in one very recent case, someone mentioned leavening the whole lump an it appeared to be presumed to be negative in connotation.
It actually is the leaven of Lee that makes me consider to reject him. But not just because it is leaven, but because it is the kind that is like the leaven of the Pharisees. I would argue that if we start with the idea that the gospels contain the direct spoken and observed teaching of God/Christ, then in a way, Paul, Peter, John, James, and any other writer of epistles "leavened" the message. They gave it analysis. They gave it immediately relevant character that might not have otherwise been obvious to those they wrote to. Their mark on how we understand the truths of the NT is inextricably part of the record. It cannot be separated from it. But they were faithful to the intent of the gospel they were sent to preach, so their "mark" was positive and useful.
You may think that it is a bit much to consider Paul's writings as leaven relative to the gospel. But forget all you ever learned from Paul, Peter, John, James, etc., and just read the gospels. Are you sure that you would have come to the same conclusions that you do including their writings? Of course not. If we all would, then their writings would be superfluous and pointless. The changes that occurred as the result of those writings was important and obviously necessary because there were churches having problems that understanding the totality of the gospel should have dealt with. So some instruction was necessary. And since it is inspired by God, it is not as if I am calling the "leaven" of these writers separate from that influence. But some of it was a matter of the way they said things. And Paul surely spoke differently than Peter did. And John. And James. And Jude.
When we listen to anyone teaching us anything about the word they are putting a little bit of themselves into it. And it is always like leaven. But sometimes it really helps us understand and apply what is there while other times is may confuse us, or lead us in a different direction.
And in Lee's case, I think that the direction was mostly wrong. So Lee's leaven is worthy of serious caveat.