Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
I remember reading a review once of something that was passed off as original research, where the reviewer said, "There is much here that is new, and much that is true, but what is new is not true and what is true is not new." I am feeling this way about Lee, mostly.
|
Yeah, I hear ya, and I'm just trying to say that the later, distorted LSM prism is not the primary way we should view Lee's work as a minister and Christian author. I don't think we should ignore or discount the tragedy of what came to be at a certain point but as far as I recall, Lee hadn't made a single "oracle" claim prior to "putting down his pen" at the conclusion of the footnotes in Acts. Until that time, it was widely recognized, and as someone else stated, even boasted of, that Lee's ministry was based upon the "best of the best" and that he "stood on the shoulders" of so many others, of course mostly meaning Watchman Nee and the acknowledged persons in the "recovery" line, but not excluding the contributions of other Christian authors.
I think it's an enormous mistake to build an other-side-of-the-mirror distorted anti-LSM prism in order to interpret Lee's legacy, such as it is, in the context of historic Christianity. It's obviously necessary to debunk the mythology of Witness Lee that might afflict us and the more recent and prevailing mythology is probably the more urgent need. But I truly don't understand the benefit of saying "Lee was merely derivative" when, if nothing else, he benefited so many merely by the synthesis and fresh presentation of often neglected writings of others. Alford is long out of print, and if you have any benefit from brother Alford's ministry, it is most likely due to Lee (even if you don't realize that it originated with Alford.)
Honestly, in a discussion about giving credit where credit is due, I really don't think there should be the need to explain this repeatedly but there's at least a trace of inconsistency around the periphery. I hate being cast in a role of "defender of Lee" because I think ultimately his work will stand or fall on its own, but among you, my brothers and sisters in the Lord, and before those saints in the Local Church who would happen here upon our musings and discussions and historical reflection, SOMEONE has to be "devil's advocate" to say repeatedly that THE GUY JUST WASN'T AS BAD AS ALL THAT.
So, let me retort that your quoted clever and poetic critical quip could well be a mere short circuit to rational thought on the topic. The synthesis and harmonizing of older material is in fact "new" and I'd hope you could find it within yourself to begrudgingly admit that.
And I really wish there were a true LSM representative here to do the hard work of really combing through Lee's copious materials and presenting to us what was in fact Lee's own new light.
I concur that the insufficient attribution issue casts a shadow over anything which might be claimed to be Lee's contribution, to the extent that anyone really cares to uphold it and say "This is of Lee." But I have to testify that studying the Bible in conjunction with Lee's ministry, I learned it better and faster and know it more thoroughly today than associates who got saved around the same time and that's a phenomenon that I've seen and heard repeated. I think some of the folks around here are probably a product of that themselves.
The footnotes and cross references in the RcV, even if not properly attributed, were put together by a religious teacher in such a way as to be extremely helpful to a young believer hungry and thirsty to know Christ. Not as pure as the driven snow as the modern LSM might wish to portray it. But even if all Lee did was quote Alford and Vincent in the same sentence, that counts as "new," even under copyright law.
Grace to all today.