Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
If Saul is a type of the minister of the age that explains a lot about Nee and Lee.
The Chinese cried out to God, "Give us a king," and God gave 'em Nee. We Americans cried out to God, "Give us a king." and God gave us Lee.
Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
|
I think people want to have leaders, but they don't always know what kind of leader they want. People thus end up with both good bad ones. As leaders rise and fall, they can be evaluated by weighing their good and bad. That process should help people to narrow down what kind of leaders they want. Within the LC, a critical assessment of Lee and his blended enlargement is sorely needed. Without that, everything in the LC reeks of being similar to somewhere like North Korea where Kim Jong-un is the supreme leader and cannot be critiqued. This image accurately depicts how LCers view their hero-leaders:
To me, the problem is not so much the fact that there is a leader, but is the question of whether or not the leader is held accountable. The big trap LCers fell into was to hold Lee as being infallible ("even when he's wrong, he's right").
Some have said that they were helped by his ministry in some way or another. The problem is, that because this "help" can't be separated from the dross of Lee's ministry, it ultimately has devalued his ministry for all but the blindest of his followers. When his ranting and raving is given the same weight as his Biblical exposition, it ultimately negates any benefit of his ministry. The only thing gained by promoting Lee as the supreme leader is that members view Lee and his successors as kings. To anyone outside of the LC, this is viewed as being suspiciously cult-like (as it should).