The Gospel Versus "God's Economy"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

I would say if pressed in the local churches, the gospel we see in the New Testament is taught, however practices indicate having distinctions and preferences.
As a result it's the ones seeking higher education are the ones sought after in the campus gospel work. Ones who forego a college education aren't seen as "good material" and as a result are often neglected.
Why is it college students are deemed "good material"?
Is it potential of higher income translates to more giving for the ministry?
Is it higher education equates to better grasp of the "high gospel" and thus embracing the vision Witness Lee's ministry has been promoting?

Maybe it is a quest for a form of legitimacy through the association with and acceptance by college-educated people.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In my mind, rallying behind a leader, whether Luther, Darby, Calvin, or Lee, is little difference other than time. The "dangers" seem to diminish as the years go by. In other words, following Luther back in the day labeled you a heretic of the worst sort, but today Lutherans are accepted as orthodox and benign main-streamers. Perhaps being Lee-ites will one day bring about the same responses.

Some really good responses here! So many I'll have to take them one by one!

Ohio makes a good point about how certain teachers and teachings are viewed as heretical in their day, but eventually make their way into the mainstream of what is considered orthodox. Of course we may want to look at just who was calling Luther a heretic, and why they were calling him a heretic. Luther's accusers and detractors were the Pope, his learned archbishops and clerics, and none other than the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire - none of which anybody could even faintly claim were the strong promoters of or even defenders of the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the central truths found in the New Testament. Just why they were after Luther is quite a bit more involved and complicated, but it was not for his preaching of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, or even for teaching any of the central truths found in the NT per se, but mostly for his decrying of the rampant hypocrisy among the Catholic clergy.

So, over the years, who have been the most vocal and harshest accusers and detractors of Witness Lee/LSM/LC? Well, it has undeniably been a mixed bag, and to just name them all, much less get into the distracting and fruitless business of critiquing the critics, would be a worthless time drain and would inevitably take us away from the question at hand. I would, however, at the risk of being Captain Obvious, point out that comparing Witness Lee to Luther, Calvin or even Darby, in any sense of comparison I could imagine, is just about the biggest apple to oranges correlation I've heard in a while. We've just seen the likes of who was calling Luther (and Calvin) heretical, and I don't think any Christian apologists were calling Darby a heretic. Furthermore, the view of the vast majority of orthodox, evangelical Christians hasn't really changed much over the centuries. Luther and Calvin are still regarded as pillars of the Christian reformation, and Darby was more known for calling other people heretics than being called one himself.

Perhaps being Lee-ites will one day bring about the same responses.

Maybe from highly compromised "apologists" like Hank Hanegraaff, but I doubt you will hear anything like "we were wrong" from the likes of the 75 Christian scholars and ministry leaders from seven nations who signed the Open Letter at http://www.open-letter.org/- most of them have probably seen and heard too much about what Witness Lee actually taught to swallow the "but we are actually just misunderstood orthodox Christians" ruse.