[OBW]

I beleive that the premise that they were "onto something" is much less significant than most of us want to admit. Even those of us that have separated ourselves from it and point at the mess and error that persists.

Why? I'm not entirely sure.

I think that maybe it is that we have a tendency toward correlation with respect to things that are long ago enough that we don't have a complete ability to assess everything about it. I think this is where that "early LRC v late LRC" or "early Lee v late Lee" come into play. We had something enjoyable. Something that uplifted us. I almost said "uplifted our spirits," but while I don't necessarily discount that, I don't think it is as simple to declare that as true as we would like.

As people, we tend toward extremes. When things are rocking along smoothly, we generally ignore it. When they get bad, we take note. And when they are suddenly better, we also take note. And in those "better" times, it is our natural tendency to be "up." Up in whatever way is reasonable or somewhat appropriate. The truth may not be much different from "rocking along smoothly," but because of the juxtaposition to some bad times, we elevate what might actually be simply normal — at least for a while.

And sometimes we are rocking along smoothly and someone comes along and sows seeds of discontent and suddenly things are bad even though nothing has happened. We just have some kind of thought that it could be better, so now must be bad.

Without any reference to Nee or Lee, this was a common thing in Christianity in the 60s and early 70s. There was a bunch of so-called "inner life" writers and speakers stirring up people. There was a charismatic wave such that there were charismatic meetings at Catholic, Episcopal, Baptist, and other denominational groups here in the DFW area. Guys like Kenneth Hagan (inner life) had a sort of cult following (that actually included my parents). There were others but I don't remember names right now. People in all sorts of places were reading all kinds of things. And those things were talking about Christianity in a way that was not fitting in with the status quo in their assembly of choice. At least not well.

So enter the free groups, including the LRC. People who got involved with some others of similar mind that started meeting together regularly rather than just sometimes began a more robust free group movement. In the middle of that came Lee and the LRC. Those who joined-up in those early days were given a fair bit of freedom to be experimental, in a way. They were no longer sitting in pews, singing three songs, 1st, 2nd, and last verse (every sing all of "Let Us Contemplate the Grapevine"?), to the sound of a piano and Hammond organ (or even pipe organ in some of the older traditions). Your voice was now heard regularly. (Notice that, at some level, the freedom for using your voice has now been diminished in the LRC. They have us now.)

It was different. But were the teachings really something worth taking note of? Ground, clergy (or lack thereof (really?)), etc., followed by God's economy, and then flowery term after flowery term with the intent that saying it better meant it was better (and they must actually teach that now).

What did they teach that needs Nee and Lee that is really worthy of keeping?

I can't find anything. They were smart enough to leave most of the base alone. That means it was not theirs. Everything that they played around with was at least pushing the envelope to have differences with the rest of Christianity. Some of it was questionably heretical. And I think that some of it even did not have any question about it.

Now don't go ballistic on me. Some level of heresy is not the end of the world (as we know it).

I am convinced that the LRC needs to keep Nee and Lee intact because they are the source of everything that causes there to be a need to remain separated (and sectarian) relative to everyone else. If Nee was simply a brilliant reader who could distill and repackage other's writings into something he wanted, and was doing it with little true spiritual training at age 21, what was he? From there he went on to become someone of renown, even starting a church at a pretty young age (not necessarily a bad thing). But the accusations of sexual improprieties began at a young age. By the time of the 1942 excommunication (or whatever you want to call it) this was at least the second time the issue had been raised. He may be commended for realizing the error of his ways and taking the discipline.

But it was fairly clear within less than 12 months after being allowed back in (in 48?) that he would not have it happen again. He gave a series of messages in which there was a hierarchy of authority that was understood based on who was the one to direct your spiritual questions to. Since no chain of who was above or below who had him anywhere but at the top, he was the pinnacle. Never had to say it. The whole group simply believed it to be true. But the teaching did not stop there. While you could avoid doing something that this spiritual authority demanded if it was illegal or immoral, you could not question their position or speak against their person on the basis of sin. That was made clear when he said that only God could deal with Nadab and Abihu because they rebelled against God. He declared that only God could deal with the sins of someone who was a deputy authority.

Then came Lee to America. He was just this humble preacher, going from place to place bringing the good news of the church life.

Or so he said.

He was the encourager of the people of the 60s. He was not revered as the MOTA, but some began to suggest "apostle" by the early 70s. I heard it in early 73. The rest is history. Daystar. Max. Run Max off. Lawsuits. Like being exalted. Run off Ingalls, Mallons, and others. Insist that your sexual predator son be the head of your ministry and direct how churches run their affairs.

But enough about the reasons to dislike Nee and Lee. The real question is what they brought that is worthy of keeping such that if they are found to be false teachers just trying to have a better job than being an accountant, or whatever would be seen as suspect to the rest of the Christian world.

I suggest the answer is "nothing."

We went through a little of this several years ago when Steve I started a thread in the other form titled something like "Teachings of Witness Lee that I Think True." (OK, not exactly the title, but the essence of it.) I don't recall there being even one example given that was soundly worth keeping. That was really a teaching discoverable in scripture. Most were bad positions and rewrites of scripture based on an overlay . . . almost always "because of God's economy."

Funny that the way that God orders his kingdom would be the reason that the words he gave to us to understand his kingdom cannot be trusted to mean what they say. It almost creates a circular problem. God speaks his kingdom. But his kingdom requires that the words be redefined, which results in a different kingdom than the one that was spoken of in the first place.