Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UntoHim
Actually 1 Cor 5:11 is not even central to this thread, much less to most of the threads on this forum. The personal sins of Phillip Lee are actually a miniscule part of what should concern people about the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church. These teachings and practices are based upon the person and work of Witness Lee, and the problems that arose from the misconduct of his son(s) were merely a symptom of a vast and comprehensive sickness that has prevailed upon the entire movement since Lee took control. (Maybe even before, but that is for older people to decide)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Yes, Ingalls wrote and spoke out that “the nature of the Lord’s recovery has changed,” but that was as much to do with the "leadership" of PL as anything else. WL had removed himself from the scene, and all leaders from around the globe were instructed to report to PL, his "most trusted co-worker." Surely “the nature of the Lord’s recovery has changed” for such a profligate character to be in charge.
|
Didn't Witness Lee handpick elders from afar throughout the migrations and consolidations of the 70's? Seems like the culture that came of age with Daystar and Max Rappaport -- must have been fertile ground for the Philip Lee/Anaheim/Southeast/Stuttgart fiascos a decade later.