I’ve been mentioning 1 Corinthians 10 as an important chapter for considering the issues of idolatry. In the Bible I am looking at, it is given the title “Avoiding Israel’s Mistakes”. I don’t think this totally encompassing, but it suffices as a basic idea of what Paul addresses.
It is acknowledged up front that the condition of the Corinthian church as it relates to the issue of idolatry was one which addressed actual physical idols being worshipped by Gentiles as part of what Paul is addressing.
In considering the LC, we are not talking about idols carved from wood and stone. Idols of concept and idea are just as much idols as those of wood and stone. Idols in the form of exalted men are also still idols. If these things replace the Lord in our lives and His place of pre-eminence then they bring us into an idolatrous condition.
It should also be acknowledged before we start that there were things introduced in the LC of by no fault of those who came into the group. They were introduced by a highly gifted, educated worker who was not working solely for the purposes of God, but had wanted things for himself and his family. He used God’s Word for his own personal advantage and financial gain. He used genealogies to entice and sway many to a false way which turns out to be idolatrous. I know that quite a few don’t like it when others bring this into the light, so let me provide some more evidence of this fact for ongoing consideration. (This will take several posts)
I would like to introduce into evidence the events surrounding T. Austin Sparks visits (2 of them) to Taiwan and the eventual split that formed in Taiwan as a result of the disagreement that arose between T. Austin Sparks and Witness Lee.
I want to emphasize one
most important point. Time has fully demonstrated that T. Austin Sparks spoke as a
true prophet and Lee did not. This point cannot be overemphasized. It is very important in the scheme of things. Lee's falseness was his holding to a particular non-essential doctrine of locality which set a boundary on the Body of Christ that was less than the full Body of Christ.
For a more complete account of T. Austin Sparks speaking that was at the core of Lee and Sparks disagreement, you can listen to him in his own words. The Chinese translator is Witness Lee. Please review the following thread (
click here) and find the link to the site that contains an audio recording of T. Austin Sparks message.
The “new” evidence I am producing has been available. It is part of the Morris Fred dissertation from the early 70’s which has been previously posted in it’s entirety (
click here)
Please note that this paper was funded by a grant of the US Government. The National Institute of Health issued a training grant (NIGMS-1224) to fund this research. Yes, our God is a sovereign God. This paper was not written by someone who was either “pro” or “anti” LC. It was written by someone who was scholarly interested in Philosophy. This does not make it more or less valid. It just makes God sovereign in all things.
Morris Fred Dissertation - Page 42-44 (
Keep in mind that this was written in the early 70's)
Sparks' first visit to Taiwan ran fairly smoothly with the topics of discussion revolving around spiritual revelation and living of the spiritual life. Two years later, Sparks returned to Taiwan and a house was rented for him and his wife and a cook was provided for them.
This time Sparks dealt with the nature of serving within the church, an aspect directly related to church organization. He argued the need for greater communication among all Christians and that remaining only within the bounds of the Local Church is against the idea of the universality of Christ. Lee replied that if one doesn't have a glass, how can one put water into a receptacle, alluding to the need for strict boundaries in order for spiritual growth to take place. Sparks' answer was that Jesus (the water) should not be placed in a receptacle as small as a local church for Jesus is too big.
After various meetings, Lee attacked Sparks' position in meetings with elders and co-workers. He said he had made a mistake in inviting Sparks to Taiwan and that as a guest, Sparks had no right to criticize or suggest changes in the organization of the Assembly Hall Church in Taiwan. One informant present during a small meeting in which Lee criticized Sparks said that he had been shocked by the harsh language used--that Lee had said that Sparks had a superiority complex and was unwilling to listen to others' viewpoints.
The disagreement can be viewed on two levels. In the first place, many of the younger co-workers, who previously had been skeptical of the level of spirituality of foreign Christians, were very impressed with Sparks and his scriptural knowledge. This engendered an interest on their part in reading Sparks' writings and discussing them amongst themselves. Implied in the statements of these informants regarding Lee's reactions is that Lee felt his position as sole head of the church threatened by Sparks. Thus, at one level, the clash was a personal one. At the second level, the important aspect of the "foundation" of the church was at stake. Lee felt that the only scripturally prescribed basis for church organization was the locality and that all church workers should remain within the bounds of the Local Church.
Sparks, however, felt that this doctrine was too dogmatic and had the effect of turning the principle of locality (which had been discussed by Nee) into a doctrine one which another sect or denomination was being formed, hindering the desired goal of universal fellowship among all Christians. Thus, he encouraged the co-workers within the various local churches to establish contact with other church groups and to preach the gospel in meetings other than their own. Lee correctly saw this as a potential subversion of the organization of the Local Church as it existed in Taiwan. The result was that some of the co-workers and elders were sympathetic with Sparks' position and others maintained allegiance to Lee. The publication of Sparks' sermons in the "Ministry of the Word" in 1955 was halted (Note by Matt: I believe the halt came in 1957) and the stage was set for a struggle between the two factions which led to the formal split in 1966.
Please note the timeframe here.
From 1958?/59? -1960 Lee began traveling to the US some. By 1960, Lee stayed in the US. It has been assert that Lee remained in the US starting in 1960 because he was not welcome to return to Taiwan. From 1960-1966 there was turmoil in Taiwan until the split was finalized in 1966. To my knowledge, this breach has never been healed.
It has been asserted by some from the US side of the LC that Lee was a little more “repentant” or “subdued” during his initial years in the US. This claim is made to support the idea that he was “under the blessing” during some of the 60’s. I want to say plainly that I do not believe this is true. Lee was in jeopardy of losing the product of his efforts in Taiwan. He had opportunity in the US and being less welcome in Taiwan he took advantage of the opportunity.
It is entirely possible Lee was “toned down” in the early 60’s, but his behavior patterns did not change. In fact, he was working stealthily to re-exert control in Taiwan. He remained in contact with his “top lieutenants” in Taiwan during the years of 1960-1966 while he was supposedly “under the blessing” in the US.
I believe the truth is more like this. God was pouring out His Spirit in a big way in the US and throughout the world in the 60’s and 70’s. Given Lee’s advanced knowledge of the Word and his claim to a “genealogy” linking him to Watchman Nee, he was able to take control of a system of worship and shape it. Behind him, Satan was subtly working to ensure that this system was one that would actually be a destroyer of God’s faithful. He (the Enemy) did this by exercising particular strength/weaknesses in Lee that had not been fully dealt with by the Lord and were not in full submission to the Lord.
(To be continued)