[Cassidy]

"Concerning John the Baptist, for example, Lee writes: "John acted in a way radically opposed to religion.... He had no religion,... he was versus religion,.... he said nothing about the ten commandments. He gave that up." (WL Christ vs Religion pg 9-10)."

Technically Duddy is correct concerning what Witness Lee said about John the Baptist. Witness Lee did say the things being quoted here. The problem is Duddy's conclusions are based on a few statements and many omissions and did not include everything that Witness Lee said to provide the reader with context. Also, one statement above taken out of context which I will explain below.

Duddy makes it look as if Witness Lee just made anti-religion statements without any explanation to substantiate them. Duddy cuts out the most important part. Had Witness Lee only stated the above I do not think too many people, including me, would find that very compelling (and this book I consider a classic as previously stated) . With Witness Lee's complete explanation, the filling in of the "..." becomes much more compelling and by far a more interesting read. I know it is possible, but I do not think it plausible for anyone to read the whole explanation and not find it thought-provoking if not compelling.

I think Duddy had a major scholarly failing here. I highlighted Duddy comments in blue below. Also, Duddy's comment about John the Baptist and the ten commandments was taken out of context as Witness Lee explained that specifically in relation to John's introduction of Jesus as the Lamb of God (though this whole section is about that being outside of religion)

"Matthew chapter 3 relates to us the principle of the introducing of Christ—this also is absolutely outside of religion. John the Baptist was the one who recommended Christ to the people. He was born a priest, but he would not remain in the priesthood, he would not stay in the temple or even in the city of Jerusalem. We read that he was in the wilderness. He stayed in a wild place, and even he himself became wild. He wore camel's hair. The camel, according to Leviticus chapter 11, was an unclean animal. But John said in effect, "You say, according to your religious regulation, that the camel is unclean. Then I must be such a camel!" What would you say? John acted in a way radically opposed to religion. And consider his diet. He ate wild honey and locusts. He had no religion, and he had no culture; he was versus religion, and he was versus human culture. He was not in the temple. He had no altar to offer sacrifices, he had nothing related to religion or even to human culture.
Not long ago in Los Angeles a brother came to the meetings wearing a blanket. This blanket was a real test to some of the people. But John the Baptist wore camel's hair. The blanket was cultured, treated, and made with human hands, but the camel's hair worn by John the Baptist was absolutely raw. He was wild; he was really wild. This was the pioneer, the forerunner of Christ. It was he who stood there and, seeing Christ coming, exclaimed to the people, "Behold, the Lamb of God." It was he who said that he saw the Spirit as a dove descending from heaven upon Christ, and he knew that it was He who would baptize in the Holy Spirit. What can we say? He said nothing about the ten commandments. He gave that up. He said, "Behold the Lamb of God." He pointed to the One who would baptize in the Holy Spirit, and he said, "Repent!" John did not teach people about religion—he called on them to repent, to change their mind, to change their concept about religion and culture. He did not tell them to do something, he baptized them, he buried them, he terminated them. John said, "I baptize you in water, but He that comes after me will baptize you in the Holy Spirit."
What would you say? Jesus was recommended in such a wild way. Would you believe? Would you take it? He was recommended by a wild person in a wild way with nothing to do with religion. Hallelujah for John the Baptist! He was really good."


Christ versus Religion, by Witness Lee