Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
Peter,
I'm not stuck on the idea that the "we're IT" factor was the only factor that initially drew people to the LC. With the outpouring of the Spirit going on and the thoughts which were not countered that the LC was the God's special move on the earth, it was part of the equation.
There were other things. I'm trying to draw out the ones that were not based solely on the truth and/or tended towards allowing a man (or men) to setup an idolatrous environment that started in a smaller way, but grew.
The other primary fact is that Lee wasn't in some better condition from the earliest days. He was dirty and wasn't listening to sound admonition from someone like TAS who was speaking soundly. This opened the door to the Enemy to be integrated into the environment from the beginning.
In regards to Lee, I believe the "ground" represented a means of establishing earthly control over other believers in the name of God, but not of God.
Matt
|
Matt:
I didn't think you were presenting it as the sole factor which brought people in. Nor am I countering the evidence you're bringing forth concerning "early Lee."
What I am interested in, in part, is what is was that attracted folks in the first place. There are varied answers to that question, but its answer is important. Rephrased, my question to LC members could be: "What was the foundation of your being in the LC." I do think this is an analogous inquiry to the one you are pursuing.
Its an important question. Because this initial "foundation" is what sustained people and perhaps caused them to remain. Certain teachings or practices that came in or they adopted later may be cause of concern, but if they were not the source of their reason for being in the LC - and especially if they were subsidiary to their presence in the LC - then I think it changes the "idolatry" discussion. This question also is applicable to all of us - even after being in the LC and in other groups. It treats our accoutability as being larger than whether we were or were not in an errant group.
As I said, there seem to me to be two conversations here:
1) Did Witness Lee adopt or create an idol out of "the ground"
2) Were you [mr or mrs LC person] idolatrous?
First, in this discussion where the definition of "idol" is not as crisp as in the OT (i.e. where the idol is actually another god with a name, etc...), no given object or idea is inherently an idol. Its people's relationship to it which makes it an idol. Thus, an idol to one is not to another. Secondly, the existence of an idol is one thing. But being in and around something that some treat as an idol does not itself make one idolatrous. Thus, I am interested in establishing the Scriptural criteria by which we can say any given individual has been idolatrous when in and around something that others, especially leaders, have idolized.
I would like to suggest a possible four categories of folks here, let me know what you think:
Those who created idols
Those who knowingly "ate food sacrificed to idols" because they thought it was the right thing to do (even if they didn't see it that way)
Those who did not know the food had been sacrificed it to idols and simply ate of it as food.
Those who recognized that the food had been sacrificed to an idol, but did not idolize, and thus whose conscience allowed them the freedom to eat
What are your immediate impressions of this rubric? The premise of the rubric is that, concerning idols, there are different standards of accountability, based on personal knowledge and conscience. If this seems like a workable rubric, onto what do you think these four categories should map in the LC? What's the "idol" and what's "food sacrificed to idols" etc...?
Thoughts?
Peter