Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
The whole structure rests upon "Lee is always right", and if we challenge that, it might collapse... Friends, this is human culture at work, pure and simple.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisbon
How things changed. One of my first trainings in the Anaheim convention center WL thought he had trouble making his point and very spontaneously called at least half dozen people whom he knew could possibly contribute come forward and speak to the subject for a few minutes. Averil Hendrickson was one of them and the only sister. She did very well. To my observation she did as well as any but such an observation is not worth much from 40 years ago. You can be sure something like that would not take place today.
|
One could make the argument that WL was only about one thing: the acquisition, consolidation, and maintenance of human power. This, he firmly believed, was necessary for the "building of the Body" or the "Consummation of the New Jerusalem" or whatever, but nonetheless it neatly coincided with him neatly atop the social heap.
WL initially would allow himself to be displaced at the dias; he would even initially invite people up, as Lisbon relates. But eventually the "storms" convinced him that pliable and silent sheep were best for the Church. That included women along with everyone else. It's like the guy who says, "I'm not prejudiced: I hate everybody." WL repressed everyone, women included.
As I said before, if you publicly criticize Mao in China today, 40 years after his death, you will be fired from your job. I am sure the Chinese were mystified at the virtual blood-bath the Americans went into when the Executive (B. Clinton) was found in dalliance with a young female aide. So human culture in the USA isn't inherently superior to the PRC. But my point here is that if we arrange our spiritual assembly according to our human culture, it will be flawed. And if we interpret the Bible according to the desire to maintain the spiritual assembly in a state beneficial to our personal interests, that will be a flawed interpretation.
In the Psalms, WL would pan David's expressions of fealty to God, as the vain imaginations of a sinner. WL couldn't see the coming Son of David, Jesus the Christ, in spite of the NT's repeated invitations to do so. Or, WL would present the "seeking one" of the NT as typified by the psalmist. Again, wrong. The only "seeking one" who ever existed is Jesus Christ. We find our seeking in His. Any seeking of God, apart from Jesus Christ, for the Christian disciple, is vain. WL pointed either to the "fallen psalmist" under the law, or the "seeking Christian" under grace, but in either case he misaimed by turning our attention away from God's Christ. The Bible is not about David, or about us; it is about Jesus Christ. Reality is found nowhere else.