My Testimony: Olvin

[Mephibosheth2]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hi Mephi,

Please clarify. What, exactly, do you disagree with? I want to be sure I understand before I put by foo... I mean, before I speak.

I disagree with the assertion (I can't remember who stated it) that when it comes to Lee's ministry, it is well nigh impossible to separate, generally speaking, the chaff from the wheat. I contend that it is possible. It all comes down to the kind of glasses you're wearing to use to read him. These glasses are now available. They were not available even ten years ago. The sanitized version of Witness Lee -and indeed, Watchman Nee- has now dissipated into the air. We now see WL as he truly is...or was...warts and all...and it is this knowledge that those who are astute enough to do so can use to unmask him and unravel his so-called high teachings.

We can use that information to properly discern his writings in much the same way a university professor would, say for example, study the US Constitution. Let's take the second amendment as a case in point. It is generally accepted that it is the inalienable right of all Americans to bear arms (provided they are not barred from doing so as provided by law, as in the case of mental incapacity, for example, or in the case of a criminal record). As such millions upon millions of Americans have taken full advantage of this provision in the constitution in order to arm themselves, sometimes just adequately enough to protect themselves and their families; but sometimes needlessly and to the teeth. There are some who cannot see the logic in letting assault weapons of the most frightful and lethal capabilities be bought and sold on every street corner like so many bags of potatos. The result has been clear for all to see. Sandy Hook and Columbine come to mind, not to mention the violent drug and gang cultures in the inner cities. Now, isn't it folly to think that the second amendment has not played at least a minor role in this? And that, some would say, is an understatement.

Then there are those to whom the second amendment makes perfect sense. It is logical. If I am threatened in my own home by a gun-toting thief, then surely I must have recourse to an equal and opposite means of defending myself. They argue. There are of course, other reasons, put forward in defense of gun ownership. These gun owners would appeal to the founding fathers as the enduring founts of wisdom who guaranteed them their right. And they would be correct. The 'founding fathers' did indeed establish it, and they did indeed guarantee it. And as such -and now I'm just beginning to make my point, Igzy- the second amendment has assumed proportions similar to those of the Scriptures, usurping them even. In effect, the second amendment, owing to a powerful gun lobby, is now almost absolute, unchallengeable, and indisputable.

But what happens when we whip out our 'glasses'? How does the second amendment fare when we adjust the tint of our lenses to allow for the glare? Let us read the second amendment as framed by the founding fathers and find out:

"a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [upon]"

I am reasonably confident that I don't need to teach you history, Igzy, but it is clear and evident that at the time that this document was worded, the founding fathers could not have imagined or envisioned the United States as it is today. The backdrop, as you must know, is the one of the war of independence against Britain which ended in 1776. Small bands of colonial settlers (farmers, blacksmiths, merchants, etc) organized into 'militias' and 'bearing arms' against his awful majesty, the king, were mainly to be given the credit for prevailing successfully against the formidable British Empire. They were applauded for this. It was only natural that a recognition of the pivotal role that the militias played in the fight for independence should be reflected in the constitution in order to safeguard the new state against future tyranny. To the minds of George Washington, et al, any possible future conflict would look very much like what they had just passed through. And who can blame them? But to us living in the present day, any idea of organizing into bands of armed militia to say, for example, defy and rise up against President Obama because of his 'tyrannical healthcare policies' and his 'wicked liberal views' appears simply ludicrous! In view, therefore, of the strict context in which the second amendment was conceived and penned down, one would have to unhappily conclude, that applied today, it is superfluous and unnecessary (Disclaimer: this may not be my own view, but it is certainly the view of many who stand opposed to the questionable right to bear arms).

That all said and done, my concern is not with guns and assault rifles, as you may have guessed. It is with Witness Lee and his ministry. We now have a context, -that has taken shape as never before- through which we can divine most of what motivated and drove him to write some of his teachings. There also seems to be now, possibly facilitated by the internet, a more frank and free discussion of who the man really was. This can serve to greatly inform anybody seeking to fathom his views. A quick look at Chinese culture, for example, especially as it stood in the first half of the 20th century -his formative years- not as it is today, can serve adequately to explain his dislike of confrontation, or his constant harping on about 'opinions', or even his unwillingness to deal with PL. We sometimes like to tear this man apart, but forget that after all he was Chinese. He was not an American. But this is all relatively common wisdom now. However, the principle I have outlined above can be used and applied universally, and especially in regard to taking apart his writings and spewing out the bones. I have noticed lately, when I'm perusing through his footnotes, how frequently -astonishingly so- he qualifies some interpretation of his of Scripture by phrases like 'this could mean' or 'this may signify' or 'surely this is'...etc...really..check it out. This had entirely escaped my notice before.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

I wonder if anyone remembers an issue of the Christian Research Institute journal with the headline "We Were Wrong" emblazoned across its December 2009 issue?

By the way Mephi & Dave, we covered the CRI issue back when all the LCers were proudly buying up all the copies of it. Can we say filthy lucre.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

By the way Mephi & Dave, we covered the CRI issue back when all the LCers were proudly buying up all the copies of it. Can we say filthy lucre.

In can recall being in home meetings during this time where the local elder would comment how Hank would tour China with several blended brothers or the CRI issues We Were Wrong would be prominently displayed on the living room coffee tables.
Come to think of it, would be timely for LSM/DCP to come up with their own publication "We Were Wrong".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

I disagree with the assertion (I can't remember who stated it) that when it comes to Lee's ministry ... Let's take the second amendment as a case in point ...

After the rant about guns, I'm not sure where I stand with Witness Lee.

Reminds me of a blog by one professor Tomes.

And another comes to mind.

[Mephibosheth2]

Originally Posted by Ohio

After the rant about guns, I'm not sure where I stand with Witness Lee.

Rant?...rant?...you do me an unkindness, good sir...recant...recant...

Rant = 'an angry outburst'; 'a rage'; 'an emotionally-fueled tirade'

..nothing could be further from the truth in saying that I was 'ranting'...

But admittedly, I do accept that my post was a little too long in the tooth, but when I start banging away on my keyboard...well...anyway, I desired to offer a vivid illustration of the crucial importance of considering 'context' when deciphering historical documents, or for that matter, expositions of scripture, whether those expositions be penned by Paul, Josephus, Luther, Wesley, Darby, or, indeed, Nee and Lee. And I did mention that my concern was not with 'guns', except by way of example, for I could have chosen any number of issues to serve to state my case e.g. Wade vs Roe, or the Jim Crow laws, or the history of universal adult suffrage, or...snap!..while we're at, why not Obamacare...et cetera, et cetera...

I find I am forced to repeat myself...please recall...that I wrote:

"That all said and done, my concern is not with guns and assault rifles, as you may have guessed. It is with Witness Lee and his ministry. We now have a context, -that has taken shape as never before- through which we can divine most of what motivated and drove him to write some of his teachings. There also seems to be now, possibly facilitated by the internet, a more frank and free discussion of who the man really was. This can serve to greatly inform anybody seeking to fathom his views"...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

Rant?...rant?...you do me an unkindness, good sir...recant...recant...

Rant = 'an angry outburst'; 'a rage'; 'an emotionally-fueled tirade'

..nothing could be further from the truth in saying that I was 'ranting'...

But admittedly, I do accept that my post was a little too long in the tooth, but when I start banging away on my keyboard...well...

Sorry ... So sorry ... I recant about your rant.

Your long tooth must have struck a nerve in my neck. ... I get a little antsy when people start taking away my right to own guns ... Even though I don't own any.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

The sanitized version of Witness Lee -and indeed, Watchman Nee- has now dissipated into the air. We now see WL as he truly is...or was...warts and all...and it is this knowledge that those who are astute enough to do so can use to unmask him and unravel his so-called high teachings.

Why, o, why did Witness Lee always clear his throat with the mic on?

Originally Posted by Friedel

Why, o, why did Witness Lee always clear his throat with the mic on?

It is well known that 'clearing the throat' was a common and powerful intimidation tactic used widely during the Cultural Revolution. It was favored as an effective tool in prizing the truth from suspected Kuomintang sympathizers and other enemies of the state by Chinese Communist Party interrogators. It was usually employed just before particularly cruel and rigorous examinations of prisoners. Nee, believed to have been a major-general in Chang-kai-chek's army, must have been subjected to endless sessions of relentless 'throat-clearing' after his arrest and during his interrogations; and hence his famous admissions of guilt during his trial. Witness Lee's later widespread use of this method of 'clearing the throat' was deliberate and calculated, and served to completely subjugate the impressionable minds of those in the LC at the time...as history can firmly attest.



...and if you have believed everything I've just told you then that means when I cleared my throat earlier it must have had some kind of effect on you...

[aron]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

We now have a context, -that has taken shape as never before- through which we can divine most of what motivated and drove him to write some of his teachings. There also seems to be now, possibly facilitated by the internet, a more frank and free discussion of who the man really was. This can serve to greatly inform anybody seeking to fathom his views. A quick look at Chinese culture, for example, especially as it stood in the first half of the 20th century -his formative years- not as it is today, can serve adequately to explain his dislike of confrontation, or his constant harping on about 'opinions', or even his unwillingness to deal with PL. We sometimes like to tear this man apart, but forget that after all he was Chinese. He was not an American. But this is all relatively common wisdom now.

Agreed. The context of the original needs to be considered; what might it have meant to the writers, and readers, versus what we might want it to mean today? Don't asssume that the two are so closely aligned as you wish they were.

Case in point: Ecclesia. It seems to escape the "one church per city" folks that the word 'ecclesia' didn't originally mean 'church'. It was extant long before the gospels were spoken, and later written down. It was in the LXX OT, i.e. "in the ecclesia I [Jesus] will sing praises to You [the Father]". What did it mean, before the word 'church' came in to existence? Nee didn't seem to consider this much, perhaps because he had a theme to push and this analysis wouldn't help his cause. What if 'ecclesia' meant something like 'gathering', or 'assembly'? Then you could perforce have multiple meetings in one urban area. Why, wherever two or three were gathered, Christ promised to be there!

But, this wasn't helpful to break free of the Western yoke. Nee was operating in a cultural milieu just a few years removed from the Boxer Rebellion, remember. So the post-Protestant, Bretheren-influenced "church" notion drove the Little Flock to segregate itself. Naturally this was attractive, and was supposedly "blessed" by God in China in the 1920s and 30s; and later Taiwan in the 1950s. But it cannot be overstated that this 20th century meaning might have been quite different from what it meant in the first century CE. We ignored this possibility, to our peril. We got stuck in our current meanings, and were left to wonder why our current experience seemed so different from the scriptures, no matter how much the LSM cheerleaders tried to get us to look away from the obvious.

For a second example, look at the derivation of Lee's teachings, and the ideas he came up with and pushed from the dias. Again, notice how his interpretive focus would nicely align with whatever "move" in the churches he was trying to foster, or suppress. So when the saints were eagerly singing Psalm music that came from the dreaded "denominations" he began to strongly and repeatedly deride the singing of Psalms, saying that they were mostly "low" and "natural" and full of "fallen concepts". Instead, he recommended singing Ephesians and Philippians; you know, the so-called "heart of the divine revelation". No mention that in Ephesians, as elsewhere (i.e. Colossians) Paul had written to the saints to sing the Psalms! (Nor was this idea of a "low" or "natural" OT text alonside a supposedly "revelatory" one ever mentioned in NT exegeses). So you had a teaching that was arguably derived to meet a "current need" in the U.S. "Lord's Recovery" churches in the early 1970s, but to do this, the original word was stripped of all textual and/or comparative understanding. The word now meant whatever we wanted and needed it to mean at that moment. Which is understandable; we all do this. The problem was that it was sold to us as something entirely different. And therein lies the problem.