Good Lee/Bad Lee: Can They Be Separated?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Guest 1

In the same way, if you had 25 different bible expositions on your shelf I see nothing wrong with one of them being WL. But, if you believe that only one is the “oracle” that to me is the fundamental error of WL. Bad Lee is not that he taught that the Body of Christ is Christ. Bad Lee is that he taught that all other Christian teachers were devoid of any value. We had a bookstore in our hall. We were actively coerced into buying WL’s writings while at the same time being berated if we showed an interest in other teachers. That to me is “Bad Lee”.

This comment reminded me of a discussion I had with Philip Comfort years ago in Columbus in 1980. He was known as a "pure wordist" among those in greater Ohio. At the time, he loved the ministry of WL, yet viewed it as only one of many ministries and commentaries which can render help to us believers. At one point, he named several books in the Bible, and then identified which commentator he felt was best, e.g. "if you really want to know Galatians, you have to study Martin Luther." He was well read, yet Phil Comfort always stressed the Bible first. In another conversation, he said that he had probably spent over one hundred hours prayerfully considering the opening words of First John, "That which was from the beginning ..."

In the early days, someone like Dr. Philip Comfort could fit and thrive in the Recovery. He was definitely well loved by the saints. He had a ministry freshness which was unique. Eventually, however, his Bible-only, Jesus-only purity was publicly challenged by TC in Cleveland as being "without reality, impractical, and unbalanced." All the "Bad Lee" training in TC eventually had to "deal" with this young idealist ... and so he did. TC had a way of turning all the other leaders against his "victims."

Originally Posted by Ohio

At the time, he loved the ministry of WL, yet viewed it as only one of many ministries and commentaries which can render help to us believers. At one point, he named several books in the Bible, and then identified which commentator he felt was best, e.g. "if you really want to know Galatians, you have to study Martin Luther." He was well read, yet Phil Comfort always stressed the Bible first.

"Viewed it as only one of many ministries and commentaries which can render help to us believers." A view based on common sense and factual evidence yet so controversial in the LC!

[UntoHim]

Point of curiosity: Currently, does Dr. Comfort ever mention (much less recommend) anything taught by Witness Lee?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Point of curiosity: Currently, does Dr. Comfort ever mention (much less recommend) anything taught by Witness Lee?

Here is a link to an Affirmation & Critique book review on one of Phil Comfort's books on the Gospel of John ...

http://www.affcrit.com/pdfs/1996/02/96_02_br.pdf

The review was mostly "favorable," but Ron Kangas did his best to point out where Comfort's views matched LSM's teachings. In the second last paragraph, Kangas attempted to discredit Comfort's writing as unoriginal, and subtly attempted to remind Comfort and others who was the real source of the riches.

[UntoHim]

As I suspected, Dr. Comfort did not quote or credit Witness Lee - If he had so much as mentioned Lee in passing, Kangas would fallen all over himself to mention it, and probably made it the the main point of his review. As it was, the review was somewhat shallow and even patronizing at times. Kangas mentions how Comfort wrote"Human beings possess a human spirit, the nature of which corresponds to God's nature, which is Spirit." Kangas reacts to this statement as if Witness Lee invented the entire concept, and that nobody ever mentions it. This is another LC myth. I have heard and read many Christian teachers who have addressed this matter.