Unfortunately, in bringing their doctrines to the West, no effort was made to “Westernize” them, and this was the source of much of the confusion, misunderstandings, and recriminations that resulted. Part of the training of Western missionaries sent to foreign countries is sensitivity to other cultures. This is an important factor in this discussion because it appears much of the controversy could have been avoided if only Lee and his followers had made an effort to understand the Western Christian culture into which they were moving. Regarding Lee’s views on the theological doctrines of God and man, the controversy centers around statements which are “red flags” to evangelicals, particularly those in the West. The concerns raised by counter-cult organizations about Lee’s teachings center primarily on four areas: the nature of God, the nature of man, the legitimacy of evangelical churches and denominations, and the lawsuits brought against Evangelical churches, publishers and individuals by the Local Church. Since the publication of CRI’s retraction of their former stand, churches and ministries, including, have had to rethink and reinvestigate their stand on Witness Lee and the Local Church.įor the purposes of this article, the major causes of controversy between the Local Church and the Christian community in the West will be addressed. The history of the conflict between Witness Lee and his Local Church movement-also known as the “Lord’s Recovery Movement,” along with their publishing arm, Living Stream Ministry (LSM)-and the counter-cult establishment is far too long for a detailed recounting here, but those who are interested in the full story can access it through the CRI website. However, a 50-page series of articles in a 2009 edition of the CRI Journal has come out strongly in favor of Lee’s teachings and the Local Church movement. Statements made by Lee over the years have caused his organization to be described as a cult by such counter-cult organizations as the Christian Research Institute-under both founder Walter Martin and current president Hank Hanegraaff-and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project. Foremost in the controversy is whether the LC is a legitimate movement within Christianity or a cult. Thus began a long and strange saga of charges, counter-charges, lawsuits, strife, and misunderstandings between the Local Church movement and the evangelical community that has left much wreckage in its wake, and has yet to be fully resolved. The Local Church movement was founded in China by Nee and brought to America in 1962 by Witness Lee. Witness Lee was the protégé of his predecessor, Watchman Nee, a well-known missionary in China. Here are some sites at which you could pursue further research into the Local Church / Witness Lee / Living Stream movement: However, due to the major concerns many people have about the Local Church, we strongly advise you to use the utmost caution and discernment before visiting or joining the Local Church movement. As a result, we have decided to leave our Local Church article as it currently is. The more we research the Local Church, however, the more we run into widely divergent views of the movement. There are many people, some of them formerly involved in the Local Church, who are absolutely convinced that the Local Church is a cult, or at least a non-biblical and non-evangelical movement. Please note - many have approached us and expressed disappointment that we tend to agree with CRI’s assessment of the Local Church movement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |