Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
In reading David Canfield's recent post at http://www.standforthetestimony.org/...ess/#more-1146
I am reminded it's only natural the blended co-workers might react defensively. As if they would say, "he (David) is using the ministry to attack the ministry".
Point is, by referring back to messages Lee spoke in the 60's and 70's, one can point out contradictions from the spoken messages compared to LC practices. Throughout Lee's ministry, there is example after example of double standards. |
It is remarkable to note that both W. Nee and W. Lee started out in their early days following Open Brethren teachings and practices, and then both Nee and Lee in their later days followed Exclusive Brethren practices. Every time Lee had a fresh start (Taipei 1950, Los Angeles 1962), he reverted to his Open practices. As time went on, he morphed back into his Exclusive ways, as Nee himself did when his ministry resumed in 1948.
Today the Open Brethren (think G. Muller, RC Chapman, AN Groves, GH Lang) and the Exclusives (think JN Darby, GV Wigram, Wm. Kelly, JB Stoney) are
still fighting.
There is no way to reconcile early Lee with later Lee. There are just too many startling contradictions. During the recent GLA quarantines, Anaheim and Cleveland faced this same quandary as they battled it out in tract wars over "who is the real Witness Lee?" Cleveland armed themselves with quotations from stacks of Lee books basically claiming he was like the "Open" Brethren. The Blendeds, of course, convinced that they alone knew the "real Lee" portrayed him as the "Exclusive" Brethren.