[OBW]

I want to add one thing to the above concerning Nee.

I know many sort of give Nee a pass, or think he was really OK, or even excellent.

And it may be that he really did spend a lot of time in solid teaching. But the thing that started bothering me about his writings that I have looked into in the past four years is that his eisegesis almost always occurs in the beginning. While he is establishing the basis upon which he will then take us on a journey of discovery, he cheats. He rereads. He reinterprets.

Power was redefined to be authority. If you buy that, then the rest follows. But what if the starting point is flawed? How much will continue to stand as reasonable if you don't buy the first premise upon which the rest is built? Once you do that, then it would seem that you are building a case on clever speech rather than sound understanding of scripture.

And this is Nee. If that is what Lee learned from, and we add in Lee's penchant for self-aggrandizement, what do we expect from Lee?

Very little. And for the volumes of writings that the LSM declares to be this vast wealth of teaching, we actually get very little. It is insignificant. I will be somewhat bold to say that it is little more than a heavy burden to be crushed under.