Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana
He then told me that he had once told Watchman Nee that he was not following him (Watchman Nee), but rather was following the truth and vision that Brother Nee taught. Furthermore, that he (Witness Lee) would not follow Watchman Nee if Brother Nee left the vision, but he (Brother Lee) would continue to follow the vision. He then looked me straight in the eye and charged me, “Brother Don, if I leave the vision do not follow me, but follow the vision.” I was a little speechless but I did manage to return the embrace and assure Brother Lee that I would remain true to the vision and the truth.”
|
The problem is, how do you distinguish between the man and the vision? I submit that you cannot. Especially when the man claims to be the only contemporary bearer of the vision. Especially when the man's core followers claim the man's words are second only to the Bible in authority (and practically equal to it, and sometimes better than it). Many, including you, Steve, have tried to follow the vision rather than the man, and were defamed and disfellowshipped for doing so. What are you supposed to do? Spend your life arguing over what the "vision" really is? Surely not.
What must become clear is there is a more fundamental error at work--and that is this whole exercise of becoming obsessed with one man and his vision, or even thinking it is an important issue. The Bible never, ever encourages this exercise. This is why, positively or negatively, obsession with Lee and his vision, and more fundamentally, thinking you need to identify who is "the man" or what is "the vision," is an error.
The truth of the Bible is that God has spoken in his Son, and his Son is manifested through
all the members of the Body. There is never the thought in the Bible that one man can embody all, most, or even a large chunk of this speaking. Why? I think it is because once you go down that road you inevitably end up in the place where the LRC is.
If you believe in the man and vision of the age, or anything even approaching it, you are going to end up with rabid followers who are willing to throw anyone and everyone under the bus to defend him and his vision. It's inevitably and inescapably part of the package.
Obsession with a man, Lee or any other, is unhealthy. It is unhealthy for those who defend him, and it is unhealthy to some degree for those who accuse him. It is an exercise whose very existence demonstrates why the Lord is so wise in never endorsing the idea of a "man or vision of the age" or anything approaching it. That, I think, is the lesson we all need to learn.
I have little doubt that Witness Lee said some things better than have ever been said. It is equally true that some things he did not say well. But that is true for all of us. Each of us has the ability to manifest the Son in ways no one else can. That is the beauty and wisdom of the Body. We each can contribute, but none can dominate, let alone monopolize. Rick Warren says some things like no one else can. Whenever I hear him teach, I marvel, because he just reveals God to me in such a fresh way. A young black man gave a message at our church on Sunday. I always marvel when he teaches, because he speaks the truth like I've never heard. He can do this because he is unique. No one else has his exact same gifts, experiences, personality or insights.
The same is true for all of us. That's the Body.
Anyone who thinks Witness Lee or anyone else has a corner on God's vision is already deceived and imbalanced, because in very principle the idea is wrong. So in a sense, even arguing about whether Lee is the man of the age or not is imbalanced, because doing it is obsessing on a man, rather than God. God wants us to appreciate each other and our gifts, not obsess on each other, even Witness Lee.
Practically speaking, a man and his vision cannot be separated. So upholding the vision of one man inevitably leads to revering, defending and, yes, even accusing the man more than is healthy. Therefore, we should conclude that the very idea of a man with the vision of the age is a fundamental error.