[Peter Debelak]

I agree with the concern expressed here over defining the scope of the definition of idolatry. As I mentioned in a previous post, there can be a weak claim and a strong claim of idolatry as it pertained to the LC - and its imporant to be clear about which claim is being made here (so far, it has gone back and forth):

Idolatry seems to me to be one of the most insidious of the sins which the law speaks to. If you look at all the other commandments, its pretty obvious that we've violated them if we get pinned down on our actions. Idolatry, however, is not so clear to us. Why? Because, it seems, that idolizing something is so often done in the service of our "faith". We do it because we think it is what we should do. We perceive our faith to be "better" because of the presence of the idol (though we don't recognize it as such).

Each and every one of us (with LC backgrounds or not), should be in a constant struggle to guard against the enticing of idols - because it is so easy for something other than God to become that thing we rely on and turn to. This matter should convict us all.

But this broad definition of idolatry, it seems to me, is not exactly what's being discussed here. Because, in the LC, there was a much clearer potential idol than the subtle type ones which entice every Christian every day: Witness Lee and "the ministry." Even "the recovery."

So it is not the weak claim being made here - i.e. that every Christian, including those in the LC, allow subtle idols into their hearts, which replace their reliance on God. Rather, it is the strong claim being made her, it seems, that everyone in the LC made Witness Lee and "the ministry" their "idol" - which they placed higher, in a conscious and systematic way, than God.

I think both the strong and weak claim are important to pursue, but it should be clear in each discussion which claim is being made - it can otherwise lead to confusion and unnecessary defensiveness.

Peter