Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
Actually I have a slightly different take on this. I think the majority of the major teachings of Witness Lee were steeped in serious error from the beginning, even going back to the early days in Taiwan. (and I think Nigel Tomes, as well as most former members, are coming to this realization). Of course your point about the quarantine is very well taken, and there is little doubt now that it was a ginormous blessing in disguise for Nigel and numerous brothers and sisters in the GLA. Nevertheless, I think the errors were only "in hiding" to those of us who were blinded and mesmerized by the wit and charm of a very talented false prophet. From nearly the beginning of "The Lord's Recovery" here in America, not just a few Christian apologists and scholars were pointing out these serious errors (even if they were doing the pointing in a judgmental and unkind spirit, the errors were still there and worthy of being pointed out).
|
It seems that with those who have left the LC, there is a wide variation with how much they've distanced themselves with the teachings of Lee. It's obvious that many of those here have moved on (probably moreso that the average ex-LC member). I know of people who have left the LC because of their frustrations with it, but it's obvious that they still feel the ground of locality doctrine is the only correct basis by which to meet. If they were to start attending a church again it would be with a LC. I think there are plenty out there who have never stopped for a minute to consider whether any of the LC teachings were wrong or not, they just realized that the LC didn't work for them, not understanding why that was the case.
Before I joined this forum, my concern was mostly with certain practices or situations that devolved because of LC practices. I knew that I was bothered about some of the LC teachings, but it was really hard to put my finger on it, because basically all I knew as a Christian was based on what I had got in the LC. It didn't really occur to me that there was any possibility that there could be something fundamentally wrong with any one of Lee's teachings. I was just concerned with how I was affected by the LC.
I have seen some discussion here about the phenomena of LC members who are in and out of the LC over the years. They meet for awhile, then stop, then start meeting again, and they cycle repeats itself endlessly. It is easy for me to understand why this occurs, because in regards to LC practices, it's easy to come up short and feel that you can't make the cut. I've been like this before with certain meetings I was involved with. The cycle always repeated itself, because I didn't ask the bigger questions that I should have been asking. When I first started to comptemplate things on a little deeper level, the first realization I had was that my unhappiness with the LC wasn't my own fault. It was directly related to certain LC practices.
It was tempting to just stop at that, thinking that if the LC were to rid itself of certain practices, all would be well and good. Eventually I became more interested in becoming more informed about Lee's teachings, and how those teachings compared with everyone else. That is where I really began to see that the LC couldn't just be "fixed" by changing a few things here and there.
That is where Nigel comes in. I am glad that he has taken the time to critique some of Lee's teachings in detail. There is really no one out there who has attempted to do that. I will admit that it has always made me a bit uncomfortable to read his writings, because it challenges everything that I thought that I knew, everything that I got from the LC. That's not to say that I agree 100% with what Nigel writes, but I think it is worth reading. To me, it is the whole idea of moving on beyond just realizing that some LC practices are wrong. I think that trying to consider some of Lee's teachings that have gone unchecked is well worth the time.