[zeek]

Dave---You said;

This thread started by listing all of the written defenses of so many Christian men who were true believers in the way of WL with each presentations titled “the truth…”. We can now look back and see that some of them would probably not support what they saw as “the truth” at that time. We can also see more clearly that many of those expressions of “the truth” were not “the truth” at all.

There was probably some truth in the tracts. The writers were touching different parts of the elephant. Ironically, their claims would have been closer to the truth if they had born titles like "My Point of View Concerning Witness Lee" by Max Rapoport or how about "My Opinion Concerning the Local Church Not Being a Cult" by John Rapp and so forth? Then, provided they were not lying about what they stated being their actual points of view and opinions, the titles would have been accurate.

Max Rapoport writes, “…The speaker used sarcastic and caustic remarks about his (i.e. WL) education and his knowledge of the Scriptures. The speaker insults Witness Lee by saying, ‘He is venerated as an authority, yet the man has no theological training to justify it whatsoever. He uses Greek terms in his writings and he can’t read the Greek alphabet.” Max goes on to state, “The speaker also maligns Witness Lee as a self-styled recovery agent, implying that we, the people in the local church are just following Witness Lee and not submitting ourselves to the Holy Spirit.” (The Truth Concerning Witness Lee 1977)

I was thought I was submitting myself to the Holy Spirit every time I called "O Lord Jesus" and I think others probably did too. Of course, by turning from our mind to our spirit we may have abandoned common sense in the bargain. We will never know if Max was right about what the speaker was implying anyway.

The Indian parable that I noted in a subsequent thread was tied in with the quotes from three different perspectives: a mythologist; a NT historical/textual scholar and a theologian. In general terms truth for each of us depends on our perspective including our upbringing, education, field of study, where we have lived, worked and visited etc. From my perspective Jesus cared about the downtrodden, the disheartened, the poor, the hopeless, the sick and the weak. Our experience of Jesus should result in good deeds reflective of his message of hope and peace.

The question then becomes: How far do we take perspectivalism? In the story, the elephant represents the real world beyond our limited perspective. Perhaps if the blind men compare their limited experiences they would arrive at a fuller picture of what the elephant is than if they stay in the silos of their own perceptions. That's where open communication and dialogue comes in.

The devil is in the details. Take just one word in your statement above i.e. "good". That reality is wonderfully ambiguous is illustrated by the parable. If we each act out of our limited perception of what's good, we may inadvertently kill or be killed by the elephant. One person's good is another's evil. The deadlocked United States Congress illustrates what can happen when people have different perspectives about what is good. How do you determine what is good about the deeds you do? What do you do about people who have different conceptions of of what is good.

One of my cousins who is a Messianic Jewish Christian told me that Jesus wants us to try to make as much money as we can (she quotes scripture for this) and not to worry about the poor since Jesus said, “…the poor you will have with you always.” I just wonder what kind of Christian "truth" we have today.

According to the parable, your cousin is touching a different part of the elephant. So are the local churchers. How do we deal with that? On this forum we have an opportunity to enlarge our vision of reality by conversing with people who have different approaches to reality. I'm glad that UntoHim has opened up the possibility for open discussion from different perspectives here in "Alternative Views" so that, instead of suppressing or attacking another's view of the elephant we can perhaps enlarge our views by taking alternative views into consideration. Will we find a way to an enlarged vision or deadlock like Congress? Stay tuned.