Quote:
Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe
Ohio, you have a very solid point there. Witness Lee did ask elders to do things that would make their loyalty to the system suspect - in other words, if they did obey his word to keep teaching the truth to the local saints [other than on Sunday morning] - they would open themselves to others' accusation of violating the new "anti-one-man-speaking" doctrine. Catch 22.
The fact of Witness Lee's considerable justified displeasure toward the co-workers and elders (especially so near the time of his death) has been swept under the rug for too many years. In light of this new understanding, it seems now that the Blending brothers laid claim to a depth and quality of oneness with Witness Lee and his ministry, which in actuality did not exist.
|
On other posts I have written about these conflicts, that is ... in the years subsequent to WL's passing, TC instructed the GLA FT'ers to research all LSM books for quotes to ascertain "WL's true feeling" about certain hot topic issues of conflict. Already the BB's had serious differences from TC and the GLA. Each side felt they were "more true" to WL's burden and heart. This is why Norm is so familiar with WL's rebukes of the SoCal leaders, and the BB's are so familiar with WL's rebukes of TC.
I take another view. Why did WL continually rebuke all his fellow workers? He knew that he was fueling both sides. Didn't he think his own actions were to blame. On the one hand he knew TC was much more gifted and spiritual than the BB's, but on the other hand he was obsessed with the continuation of his own ministry. He wanted it both ways. Instead he created a monster, a ticking time bomb. Since WL could not get along with any outsiders, including WN's own co-workers, is it not understandable that his students could not get along either?
By rebuking both sides, he gives the impression that he alone is according to God's heart, and that all the problems were due to the failures in his followers. Remember all those "moo cow" messages? Why blame us when your messages lacked anointing and freshness, and just regurgitated stale theology? In truth, the program was flawed. The judgment he loved to dish out to others was coming back full circle. Days of blessing were long gone, but instead of serious repentence, he tried to divvy up the blame.
By eliminating the likes of John Ingalls and so many others over the years, WL was left with mostly stale "yes-men" steeped in high-peak theology, but void of tender conscience and innovative spirit, since those remaining all knew too much about what "really" has happened. WL has no one to blame but himself when all these "yes-men" cannot carry out his wishes.