Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Jay,
The N.T. never mentions the “church of the apostles” nor the “church of the ministry,” but that is what we had become. An independent and healthy eldership would have prevented this. Thus we were not “the church of Christ” or the “church of the saints” which are both spelled out in the Word. Hence God’s economy, God’s “house rule,” or God’s household administration, were seriously violated. Actually, Nee’s “Normal Christian Church Life” spells this out fairly clearly.
|
I see what you're saying here, but it doesn't invalidate Lee's doctrine on the economy of God. Actually it just shows that Lee himself misused his position, and the elders and coworkers around him were complicit in his errors. I have read nothing that eludes to Lee believing that the apostles, elders, coworkers etc. have any type of authority over the personal lives of the saints. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I have never read it. And I've read a great deal of LSM material from Nee and Lee in my lifetime. The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know. Also being in the church for as long as I have, we rarely if ever talk about authority; spiritual or otherwise. It just never comes up
Now if Lee and co. encroached into that territory, which it sounds like they absolutely did (and I myself have experienced this with other leaders in the church), then they are just flat out wrong. And it sounds like this is Lee's lifetime major fault, and those who covered him at the expense of the body of Christ are complicit in his errors. And those who stood up against it were right to do so. It's possible he should have stepped down from any type of leadership position he held, and just relegated his sphere of function to speaking. But I suppose ultimately that's up to God. When king David sinned God didn't remove his kingdom from him, but he punished him in other ways and ultimately David's kingdom was split in half between his son's fighting. So there were major major consequences. Also with his seed Solomon, who eventually became degraded to the inth degree. But then why would I even be talking about Lee as if he was the king or ruler of the recovery? That's a funny thing right? It just means that the recovery revers Lee as if he was a king in a way. Which maybe is human nature, but it's something that is kind of hidden but obvious too. Strange thing. At any rate, how much Lee's failures damaged the church is what it is. I think at this point in time it's in the past mostly. Granted many who were caught up in the problems had their church life ruined and there should be accountability for that before God. Jesus said clearly that the stumbling blocks would be judged harshly