Quote:
Originally Posted by tasteslikegold
As a side note (and one which I find particularly fascinating) one of the main items of contention between Witness Lee (That is, his teachings) and his detractors is the footnote in Rev. 17 which identifies the sects in Christianity as the harlots. For a few hundred years Protestants had absolutely no problem with the identification of the mother of the Harlots, Babylon, as being the Roman Church (in fact Martin Luther taught this very thing). Yet when it came to Lee's identification of the harlots as being, "all the different sects and groups in Christianity that hold to some extent the teaching, practices, and traditions of the apostate Roman Church," the issue became something entirely different. How dare Witness Lee call Protestant Christianity a bunch of harlots (Despite the fact that he clearly identified them as being those who "hold to some extent the teaching, practices and traditions of the apostate Roman Church")! This, in and of itself, smacks of hypocrisy.
|
Well, when someone starts saying that everyone is a harlot except the group he founded then people are going to get indignant. And I don't recall Lee saying the daughter harlots were offshoots which hold to RC stuff. I recall him saying that all Protestant churches were harlots and "free groups" were the fornicating daughters of Moab. But his group was the pure and spotless Bride. Well, how convenient.
If Lee had said something like "we all are harlots" or "we all have been harlots from time to time" then maybe people would have listened. But he said "you're a harlot and I'm not." Who is going to listen to that? Self-righteousness is not a convincing platform from which to persuade skeptics. It usually just makes people want to tell you to stick it.