I hate to bring this thread forward, but this particular quote just sort of bugged me as I read back through it due to the resurrection of the kind of dismissal of the errors of Nee that has occurred lately. I have omitted the writer because I am not picking on anyone. Just trying to deal with a question that often comes up in so many discussions.
Quote:
|
So I would hope that if someone is going to argue that WN was wrong that they would at least point out who was right.
|
Why must there be an identification of who is right to establish who is wrong? If the Rosetta Stone of our faith (scripture) disagrees with Nee or Lee, then it is irrelevant who is right when determining that either of them is wrong.
And in newer discussions, we are now begin faced with yet another version of what is right (and you guys are wrong). The need to pin it all down so neatly, especially when done at the expense of reasonable and accurate handling of scripture, just seems to be more than even the Bible itself requires. Our faith is not in the propositions of heaven, hell, Calvinism, Arminianism, substitutionary atonement, and so many other things. It is true that the better we understand some of them, the better we are able to recognize our failures in sticking to the faith. But it is faith in the person and work of Christ that is crucial, and then to obedience to his commands.
And knowing a lot of theology is not among the commands. But when someone comes along and tries to limit our freedom in Christ by putting on yet a different set of "thou shalts" and can't make them stick to the scripture any better than Nee did on spiritual authority or Lee did on God's economy, I have no qualms in casting such nonsense aside even if I cannot assert with certainty that a specific alternative is instead right.
Some might think that it just doesn't matter then and we should leave those who claim certainty alone. If they were not enslaving Christians to yet another "this is the way" coupled with fear concerning their destiny (or euphoria over the idea that they are God's chosen people and the rest are street derelicts) I could agree. And for that reason I am not very critical of Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, AOG, Lutheran, Anglican, CofC, DofC, and other Christian groups. (Didn't mean to exclude anyone unjustly. Just can't remember all of them by name.) But those who set out to create subcultures who insist on extremes are enslaving Christians. The RCC has done it on some issues. The LRC is deep in this arena. And every so often it seems that another comes along. Not as seriously flawed as the LRC. But equally certain that their understanding is simply it. Unwilling to actually discuss anything else.
Why should I need to be like them, insisting on what is absolutely right to establish that they are wrong? Much better to hold strongly to the core of the faith, but with love. Then to hold to the rest with a much looser grip, and with love.