[Mephibosheth2]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hi Mephi,

Please clarify. What, exactly, do you disagree with? I want to be sure I understand before I put by foo... I mean, before I speak.

I disagree with the assertion (I can't remember who stated it) that when it comes to Lee's ministry, it is well nigh impossible to separate, generally speaking, the chaff from the wheat. I contend that it is possible. It all comes down to the kind of glasses you're wearing to use to read him. These glasses are now available. They were not available even ten years ago. The sanitized version of Witness Lee -and indeed, Watchman Nee- has now dissipated into the air. We now see WL as he truly is...or was...warts and all...and it is this knowledge that those who are astute enough to do so can use to unmask him and unravel his so-called high teachings.

We can use that information to properly discern his writings in much the same way a university professor would, say for example, study the US Constitution. Let's take the second amendment as a case in point. It is generally accepted that it is the inalienable right of all Americans to bear arms (provided they are not barred from doing so as provided by law, as in the case of mental incapacity, for example, or in the case of a criminal record). As such millions upon millions of Americans have taken full advantage of this provision in the constitution in order to arm themselves, sometimes just adequately enough to protect themselves and their families; but sometimes needlessly and to the teeth. There are some who cannot see the logic in letting assault weapons of the most frightful and lethal capabilities be bought and sold on every street corner like so many bags of potatos. The result has been clear for all to see. Sandy Hook and Columbine come to mind, not to mention the violent drug and gang cultures in the inner cities. Now, isn't it folly to think that the second amendment has not played at least a minor role in this? And that, some would say, is an understatement.

Then there are those to whom the second amendment makes perfect sense. It is logical. If I am threatened in my own home by a gun-toting thief, then surely I must have recourse to an equal and opposite means of defending myself. They argue. There are of course, other reasons, put forward in defense of gun ownership. These gun owners would appeal to the founding fathers as the enduring founts of wisdom who guaranteed them their right. And they would be correct. The 'founding fathers' did indeed establish it, and they did indeed guarantee it. And as such -and now I'm just beginning to make my point, Igzy- the second amendment has assumed proportions similar to those of the Scriptures, usurping them even. In effect, the second amendment, owing to a powerful gun lobby, is now almost absolute, unchallengeable, and indisputable.

But what happens when we whip out our 'glasses'? How does the second amendment fare when we adjust the tint of our lenses to allow for the glare? Let us read the second amendment as framed by the founding fathers and find out:

"a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [upon]"

I am reasonably confident that I don't need to teach you history, Igzy, but it is clear and evident that at the time that this document was worded, the founding fathers could not have imagined or envisioned the United States as it is today. The backdrop, as you must know, is the one of the war of independence against Britain which ended in 1776. Small bands of colonial settlers (farmers, blacksmiths, merchants, etc) organized into 'militias' and 'bearing arms' against his awful majesty, the king, were mainly to be given the credit for prevailing successfully against the formidable British Empire. They were applauded for this. It was only natural that a recognition of the pivotal role that the militias played in the fight for independence should be reflected in the constitution in order to safeguard the new state against future tyranny. To the minds of George Washington, et al, any possible future conflict would look very much like what they had just passed through. And who can blame them? But to us living in the present day, any idea of organizing into bands of armed militia to say, for example, defy and rise up against President Obama because of his 'tyrannical healthcare policies' and his 'wicked liberal views' appears simply ludicrous! In view, therefore, of the strict context in which the second amendment was conceived and penned down, one would have to unhappily conclude, that applied today, it is superfluous and unnecessary (Disclaimer: this may not be my own view, but it is certainly the view of many who stand opposed to the questionable right to bear arms).

That all said and done, my concern is not with guns and assault rifles, as you may have guessed. It is with Witness Lee and his ministry. We now have a context, -that has taken shape as never before- through which we can divine most of what motivated and drove him to write some of his teachings. There also seems to be now, possibly facilitated by the internet, a more frank and free discussion of who the man really was. This can serve to greatly inform anybody seeking to fathom his views. A quick look at Chinese culture, for example, especially as it stood in the first half of the 20th century -his formative years- not as it is today, can serve adequately to explain his dislike of confrontation, or his constant harping on about 'opinions', or even his unwillingness to deal with PL. We sometimes like to tear this man apart, but forget that after all he was Chinese. He was not an American. But this is all relatively common wisdom now. However, the principle I have outlined above can be used and applied universally, and especially in regard to taking apart his writings and spewing out the bones. I have noticed lately, when I'm perusing through his footnotes, how frequently -astonishingly so- he qualifies some interpretation of his of Scripture by phrases like 'this could mean' or 'this may signify' or 'surely this is'...etc...really..check it out. This had entirely escaped my notice before.