[OBW]

Igzy,

First, if it is all about who you or I first heard it from, then I'm not sure that there is a way to extricate them. But I'm seeing that the things that were true and possibly new to us were not new to others outside of there movement.

First, at least part of your "likes" comes from the inner-life movement. neither Nee or Lee started that movement. In fact, Nee was somewhat steeped in some of the earliest inner-life writers. I think that Jesse Penn Lewis fits in that and he "borrowed" heavily from her. In fact, at some level, the local churches are a kind of inner-life movement group. And it is the near extreme of inner-life emphasis over everything else that underpins much of what we learned. But we didn't need Lee to learn it. And the LRC does not need Nee or Lee to keep those parts of it they want.

You mention several general areas of teaching that you learned from them. I will not deny that it is where we learned it. But is it specially theirs? At any point in time?

Let's look at them:

Originally Posted by Igzy

A greater emphasis on the unity of the Church and on the Church as the place where God dwells and puts his name. The tendency in churches is still to look at each individual church as more or less the work of a pastor or set of pastors, rather than a real and direct work of God. There is also a tendency to look at them more as "ours" than "God's." The sense of the church, the people, as the holy dwelling place of God is still not as strong as it I think it should be.

While there are places that don't have a lot to say about other assemblies, of their group or otherwise, I think that the level of disunity in the church was greatly misrepresented by Lee and the LRC. There is no doubt that we tend to meet with like minds, but with some exceptions, we are not antagonistically at odds, building vast fences to shake hands over. We were taught to look at the fact that there are different groups on the same corner as evidence of a problem. Of course, it was not a problem that right down the street the LRC open yet another franchise. So the rhetoric of disunity in the church was all hat, no boots. They painted a picture of disunity that was cast in terms that only they could cure with something that could duplicate every alleged point of disunity that they pointed at, but was washed away by something else.

Originally Posted by Igzy

A greater emphasis on what God is after than what we are after. God is still sold as the answer to man's problems. This is indeed true. But the idea that God has a definite goal in mind which is being worked out in time is still not that popular an idea.

At least that is the story we are told. But are we sure that the important things that they say God is after are that clearly different from what the rest of Christianity is teaching? It seems to me that the origins are very much about the image of God being exercised on earth by mankind. And most of what comes after that is the steps God has taken to provide a cure for the U-turn that we took as a species at a time long past. So becoming the people we were meant to be seems more important that so much of what we focused on in the LRC. Most of it seems to point to how we act toward God (sacrifice and worship — none of which are bad) and little about how we live as proof that God changes lives (and not how we live in the meetings, but in daily life).

As for not being a popular idea, there is some truth in that. But I'm not sure that the emphasis on what that should be is still a problem. I believe that the missing ingredient for most is that we do not become those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. That are peacemakers. That are truly meek. That tolerate persecution. (We double our fists and demand that our God-given rights as US citizens deny anyone the ability to persecute us.)

In short, sanctification. There is too little emphasis on what comes after deciding that you will check the box to be a believer in Jesus. We don't really see that following is not mostly about evangelism, but about change in our lives.

You can argue that Lee and the LRC made you think there was something God was after. But I'm not sure that they were talking about what God is after. Does that sort of make their teaching on the subject pointless? It seems so to me.

Originally Posted by Igzy

A greater emphasis of the Trinity as a central mystery crucial for our experience. The Trinity is, unfortunately, really de-emphasized in churches today. It's almost a subject they try to avoid, I guess because it's confusing. That's a shame, because in my experience, appreciating the Trinity enhances my relationship with God. Although I disagreed with Lee's flatly stating again and again ad nauseum that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit, at the same time in the best possible way I know what he was getting at. If you make the Son and the Spirit too distinct, it hinders your experience. I don't claim to completely understand it, because no one does. But I do think he was onto something.

I think that the claim that there is a danger of too much distinction between the Son and the Spirit is way over blown. Only if you start treating them as so separate that you pray to one to get aligned with the other so that you get what you want or something ridiculous like that. Start treating them as not truly One.

And I do not see that happening anywhere that I am aware of.

The Trinity is far from avoided in what I hear and read. And oddly, the older the "tradition" is, the more that they really appreciate the Trinity. They are more informed on what it was that scripture says about the Father v the Son v the Sprit rather than throwing them into a blender and getting a Trinity slushie. If there is anything unique about the things I learned concerning the Trinity from Lee and the LRC, it was that their Oneness overrides anything separate about them. And of all the things to unlearn, that should be at the top of our list.

Jesus taught us to pray in a way that was to the Father. It was not to the Son or the Spirit. In fact, is there anything in the NT that suggests that we should pray to the Son or the Spirit? Prayer seems to be designated in a particular way. Now I'm not suggesting that our less formal praying that we start with something like "Oh, Lord . . ." are simply wrong. I still do it. But I am beginning to understand that there really is something to the fact that prayer is to God the Father. And if you "ask in my name" it seems quite wrong to ask Jesus in his name. It is ask the Father in my name.

There is reason that we are given specific statements about the Father, about the Son, and about the Spirit. It was not to devise a doctrine of their relationship. Each was/is specific and pointed. Teaching that it is all just One is to ignore what scripture takes many words to put in place.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Emphasis on God trying to build the Church on the earth as testimony and a Bride prepared before he returns. I rarely hear this taught anywhere else.

The number of references to the subject (not that many) and the relative quantity of words on the subject makes me think that getting so wrapped-up in the topic, even to the point of creating the kind of thing that is the LRC, seems way out of sync. And the references to "Bride" are metaphorical. Not demeaning the importance of that. If we were once truly the image of God, but lost that position, then we are not of similar "species." Once we collectively regain the true position as God's image bearers, then we have become of a similar species. Don't go overboard with the "same species" part of the metaphor because that will lead you to becoming God in everything but the Godhead. The point is that in the new creation, we are destined to be "like him," therefore (at least metaphorically) matching Christ and therefore ready to join Him in the New J.

I am not saying that that is "the way" to understand it. But I would suggest that the emphasis of bride in the LRC is way out of balance to its emphasis in scripture. There's a verse here, and a verse there, then the short bit in the end of Revelation. It is not something so profound that it should become preeminent.

But I have heard this outside the LRC. And it seemed consistent with what the scripture actually says. And in keeping with the balance of things taught in scripture.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Emphasis on the indwelling Christ and union with Christ, being crucified with Christ. These ideas are very rudimentary in Christian teaching today.

Yes, they are imprtant. And they are true whether you dwell on them or not.

And they are part of that inner-life thing that Nee brought into his teaching. You may have heard it first from Nee/Lee, but it did not start with them. No need to keep them protected to make that one work.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think many of the teachings on the human spirit are still very helpful. Many Christians I meet though they know Jesus lives in them are vague about it. But again, Nee and Lee went a little overboard with it, trying to turn it into a science. That doesn't negate the importance.

I'll ignore the tripartite man stuff (which you are also doing).

I would agree that there is a difference in how the LRC views Christ being in us compared to how many others view it. But I'm not convinced that the difference is important. Or that either view is superior. There is a significant sense of God speaking within us in many ways. Some even more than we might actually think is happening. But what I seem to be finding is that the more people tend toward seeking God within v seeking him without (in the scripture, writings, sermons, etc.) the more they tend toward fanciful thoughts and even error. The old joke about the effects of a bad taco on the spiritual life of someone that is too inward-looking is, well, too real. The more we are driven from something inside that does not have a grounding in what is solid and verifiable, the more we are at risk of being driven into error. Or at least distracted from what is important.

And I'm talking about people outside the LRC that aren't even in charismatic groups. Good ol' evangelicals who are happy to nearly go it alone in their search for truth. Just me, my Bible, and God. And if we are not careful, we will become like Nee and Lee who somewhat dismissed the Bible when it did not go along with what they were "feeling" or "seeing" inside (that they claimed was a word from God).

----

And last, earlier I said "No need to keep them protected to make that one work." Since your question was about why we need Nee and Lee (or the LRC does even if we don't), I believe that the things I have said, both in the first post and in this one, are strong points about why there is not reason to protect their image. We — specific people who were once in the LRC — may have heard certain things that were "true" that we had never heard before. But we don't need Nee or Lee for them because they were simply messengers of things already out there that we just had not heard.

I think that your perspective of including things that you suspect were not unique with them is stabbing your own question in the heart. If I have to respect my own first source, then Nee was right in Spritual Authority and we are all in rebellion because we ditched Nee and Lee.