Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S
Would you rather Lee have been better fit to lead then? Would that have made things better or worse?
|
I probably should define "fit to lead" here. First disqualifier is youth and inexperience. Watchman Nee probably took on too much too quickly (he essentially gained instant prominence by plagiarizing J P-L as a twenty-something but who knew, back then) and the glory of men went right to his head and ruined him for life. If you read his biographies he was extremely charismatic. Mesmerising. And I use that word deliberately. He took the wrong path, and brought many behind him. He had a rocket ride to the top of the heap, and when it flamed out, in front of the Communist show trial, it took many down. I heard that Ruth Lee became an atheist afterward.
A leader should be one with experience. What we'd call an "elder", an older or more mature person. There are elders who serve (read: lead) and elders who don't - those elders who serve should be accorded a double honour, and the elders who don't should get a single honour. (1 Tim 5:17).
All elderly folks should be respected; and those who lead well should be respected most of all. Some translations of 1 Tim 5 say "rule well" but for a Christian to "rule" means self-control; it doesn't mean you boss others around, telling them of the "flow from the throne".
The second qualification, following self-rule, is "Love and good works" ~Heb 10:24 "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works," In this Dorcas is probably my template. She was full of good works. If she did that for many years, and became old, and had a history of love and good works, she would be a leader.
So I respect BP as an elder. I respect RK, I respected WL (no, really). I just think they got caught by a bad idea.