[OBW]

Ohio,

I understand you points. And I do not disagree when it comes to Nee. He did not try to weasel. And he was not trying to alter. Just clarify.

But the way he did it does throw the discussion off the actual command. If you are worried about your preferences, or whether it hurts someone (and the truth always hurts the evildoer), or whether there are emotions behind it, then you are ignoring the simple fact of are you or are you not bearing false witness.

I would bet that some of those Pharisaical rules that Jesus complained about originated in cases in which the result of some rabbi's ruling was consistent with what the underlying command intended. But the way it was carried forward was abused in such a manner that the command was obliterated.

But I will make one distinction between Nee's teaching and the typical thing that rabbi's would do in their considerations. Nee spoke his piece as a general rule to consider while the rabbi typically is dealing with a question raised, often relating to a specific issue and instance. While it was common to then take the immediate ruling and apply it to seemingly similar cases, the initial statement was too often stated for a particular case. But Nee made a general statement. That doesn't make it simply wrong. But it does remove it from the construct of analyzing a particular set of facts and circumstances and determining whether they fall under "bearing false witness" and into a general situation in which you spend your energies looking at preferences, opinions, emotions, profit, harm, etc. rather than at the veracity of the statement and your ability to state that it is a true statement (rather than hearsay that you are unsure of).

That is a minor mark against the general kind of thing that Nee did. And many Christian teachers do this all the time.

The problem is how it gets applied down the road. And Lee absolutely drove a Mack truck through it, ignoring the actual veracity of his witness (or lack thereof — a little interesting coming from a guy named Witness) and chastising the actions of those he defamed by suggesting that their truth was told due to preferences, emotions, envy, strife, a conspiracy, etc., and therefore not actually truth. So Lee Lied about what they did. And he lied about what they said by contextualizing it. And he lied about the truth of what they said by suggesting that Nee's constructs made their statements lies (despite their veracity).

Of course, I've made it perfectly clear that I don't think that Nee was a very good teacher of Christian theology. But I do not mark him with the intentional kinds of error that I say apply to Lee. Nee's analysis of what might constitute bearing false witness could be applicable. But it might not. It is because he thought of it as simply true that I find fault in Nee. But for Lee, the fault is that he not only thought it was simply true, he was willing to use it to call the truth lies and lies the truth. If Nee had to face the facts Lee was facing, he would have done the righteous thing (or at least we have reasonable evidence that this would be the case). Of course, he would also have done the righteous thing months earlier and cast Philip Lee (or his own son if that had been the case) out of the LSM. In fact, he probably would have taken his own advice and not had his son working in such a position in his ministry.

Despite my misgivings about Nee, Nee and Lee are not anything alike. Nee's position on a blunder would have been to admit it and fix it. Lee's was to deny that it was a blunder and shoot anyone who disagreed.