[aron]

I have looked at the back cover. It uses the word "love" nine times, describing "an intimate life of love with the Lord", and so forth. Now, I don't know, maybe Lee loved the Lord Jesus Christ tremendously. I won't argue with that.

But maybe "his heart was darkened by greed", also? How are we to measure such things of the heart? Whether someones heart is "dark" or "full of love for the Lord" are subjective measures, and in Lee's local churches we habitually received subjective measures as if they were objective reality. So if a printed encomium by one of his disciples says that Lee's heart was full of love for the Lord, all we can do is take it at face value. How can we argue with such words? We cannot.

What we can do, however, is look at deeds. Look at actions. The Greatest Commandment is to love the Lord God with all our heart and soul and strength, and love our neighbor as ourselves. The first part is not easy to assess (unless you are writing for LSM, of course), but the second is easier to see. Lee's actions showed that he loved other things; when Lee's neighbor interfered with these other things (the ministry, his teachings, his organization, his distribution of publications, his control of the local churches) then the neighbor got thrown under the bus. John Ingalls was called his closest co-worker, until JI wasn't convenient to the cause, then everything changed. I don't see love demonstrated there. Nor with many others whom he raised up and quickly threw down. The records are there. The turmoils, the rebellions, the storms, the lawsuits. Discord after discord.

So "love" as used in local church parlance can get dried up pretty quickly if you don't do exactly as they say. They love your participation and support, but they don't love you.

Secondly, who is this Jesus Christ that Witness Lee loved so much? The one in the Bible, or the one he constructed from his imagination? Was this the real Jesus revealed to us in the Word of God, or a construction convenient to Witness Lee's ministry? I am tending toward the latter, the more I examine Lee's Bible study messages.

Regarding the OT text, Jesus said, "These things were written concerning Me" (Luke 24:44; cf Rom 15:4). Lee said, "No they were not. They were often merely the vain imaginations and fallen concepts of sinners".

The Bible says, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matt 4:4) Lee said, "Not by every word but by some; some are profitable, and some are not". Naturally the words which Lee lined up with his hermeneutics were "revelatory of Christ", and the words which couldn't fit into his theology got abandoned. And it wasn't just one or two verses, it was chapter after chapter. Look in the OT for chapters of footnote-less scriptures. No cross-references either; merely a few disparaging remarks: "Natural", etc.

The writer of Hebrews held up the OT and said, "We see Jesus". (2:9) Lee said, "No we don't. We see a fallen man writing according to his natural concepts."

Peter, standing on Pentecost, said that David being a prophet foreknew and spoke of the Messiah who was to come after him. (Acts 2:30,31) Lee said, "No, David was a sinner. He fornicated with Bathsheba, numbered Israel in his pride, murdered Uriah, etc." So when David wrote, "God rescued me" (Psa 34:4), Lee panned that and said "No, David rescued himself". Lee ignored the coming Messiah.

Paul said that the Psalms are the "word of Christ" (Cor 3:16); Lee said, "No, they are often merely words of a fallen man." Jesus said that David was speaking of Him in Spirit (Mark 12:36; Matt 22:43); Lee said David was merely speaking from and of himself, his fallen soul.

Who is fallen, here? Who is natural? You can keep your love if it's manifested this way; I don't want it. Not if you do this to the Bible. I don't know what kind of Christ is being promoted, but my job is to reject it. I really don't want to know. "Truly I tell you, I don't know you". Matt 25:12