Quote:
Originally Posted by Koinonia
. . . the issue is what exactly you consider "discussion." There may be a lot of talk, but I have to agree with others that there really is no opportunity for disagreement with Witness Lee. . .
|
Anyone who's been there knows that words have different meanings in the LC. There's the Webster's meaning, or the OED, or some biblical lexicon, and then there's the meaning that it takes operationally in the LC. And if you don't get the "real" meaning, eventually a programme enforcer will set you straight, and dispense with the spiritual niceties. Words like "fellowship" and "coordination" only go so far. Eventually you will learn what is what.
When Witness Lee covered the Psalms, he told us that since David was violent, and expressed violent sentiments, wishing harm for his enemies, then the Psalms were perforce fallen human concepts, natural and so forth. Not from Christ, unto Christ, or to Christ's glory. Not the New Testament gospel of enjoyment of God's grace.
Okay, but why did David throw a stone at Goliath? Was he really supposed to turn the other cheek? Why did Abraham slaughter the kings in Genesis 14? Was he supposed to say, "Oh, Chederloamer, you got Lot, now here are my other cousins as well"? Would this be a picture of the coming Messiah, and foreshadow His teachings? Or Samuel and Agag - was Samuel supposed to forgive Agag?
And for that matter, why did Paul say, "we fight" against principalities and powers in Ephesians 6? Why the martial spirit, Paul? Didn't you hear about the gospel of peace, and grace? And, why did unclean spirits cry out with fear and ask Jesus if He was going to destroy them before their time?
All these questions may come to mind when hearing Witness Lee's exegetical treatment of Psalms. One person who was there told me he and a neighbour lowered their heads, looked askance at each other, and made faces as Lee made hash out of the scriptural text. But not one person said one word! Hundreds sitting there passively, and at the end of the sermon only "cheerleader" testimonies were allowed. Don't want to be "critical", or "negative", else you're marked in the LC.. . and then put out of their synagogue.
In such environment, where's latitude for discussion, as the word is used in "real" life? No-where. Only, "I enjoyed this point" and "I enjoyed that point". No actual examination to see if these things are so. You know, if you examine whether these things are so, there is always the possiblity that these things are not so (cf Acts 17:11). No possiblity to examine in thusly the LC.
Or, Witness Lee somehow made thousands of pages of biblical exposition in front of tens of thousands of people over a span of decades and never once made a single exegetical error? Pretty impressive, if so. But probably the truth is that none in the LC can be permitted to find the littlest thing wrong with his teachings, because once you pull on that tiny thread, the whole thing will collapse. The whole house is built on sand: "Witness Lee is always right".
But in the Asian mind, stability matters more than truth. So don't be negative. Don't say anything critical. In China today, if you criticise the Chairman, 40 years after his death, you will potentially cause the whole society to collapse. So criticism isn't allowed. And that isn't a bad thing, really. . . it's arguably a successful model. China has continued its Communist regime after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Albania, Czechoslovakia and many others. Social stability is proof that the cultural model works. But stability isn't necessarily biblical, or living, or real, and the "frozen few" in the LC are proof of that.