Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

Cal · 03-12-2014, 06:19 PM

OBW, I never said these things were new or unique to Nee and Lee, or that we had to respect Nee and Lee as the first source or best source of anything.

I said some of them were things I believe God was and still is trying to emphasize. Not all, but some. And many churches and ministries still have not picked up on them, at least as much as I think they should. I said one of the reasons the LC was so compelling (and why we are still talking about it 30 years later) was because there were some essential things that were seen in the LC that were largely neglected at the time, and in many cases still are.

Here's a real simple, basic example. The whole idea of "going to heaven" is I still think, a mis-aiming. It's not a big deal. But it subtly changes your focus from exercising God's authority on earth to looking forward to getting out of here. More ministers in the last 30 year have seen this matter, Randy Alcorn being one. I think this is a good thing. Now my point is not that we need to acknowledge Nee as the founder of this idea, but we should at least say he was ahead of the mainstream with it, and so with some other things he taught.

The fact that I believe Nee and Lee had a few compelling things to say should not bother you, however. Because that was not even my main point, and my point doesn't depend on it. My point was that, even giving them the benefit of the doubt, IT'S STILL NOT ABOUT THEM. It is always about the message. And the message should be strong enough to endure the failures and shortcomings of the messengers. So why bother to, tooth and nail, defend the reputations of Nee and Lee? I'm speaking to those in the LC movement, not to you.

My point is that focusing on the message allows us to examine it objectively. Focusing on men, especially those we feel we need to cowtow to, pushes us to become subjective and accommodating about the message. This reaches it's extreme with Lee. His message is not questioned among LCers because of his reputation, not because the message itself is airtight.

Do you have anything to say about that? Because that's what the thread is really about.

03-12-2014, 06:19 PM	#18
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Is it the Message, or the Men? OBW, I never said these things were new or unique to Nee and Lee, or that we had to respect Nee and Lee as the first source or best source of anything. I said some of them were things I believe God was and still is trying to emphasize. Not all, but some. And many churches and ministries still have not picked up on them, at least as much as I think they should. I said one of the reasons the LC was so compelling (and why we are still talking about it 30 years later) was because there were some essential things that were seen in the LC that were largely neglected at the time, and in many cases still are. Here's a real simple, basic example. The whole idea of "going to heaven" is I still think, a mis-aiming. It's not a big deal. But it subtly changes your focus from exercising God's authority on earth to looking forward to getting out of here. More ministers in the last 30 year have seen this matter, Randy Alcorn being one. I think this is a good thing. Now my point is not that we need to acknowledge Nee as the founder of this idea, but we should at least say he was ahead of the mainstream with it, and so with some other things he taught. The fact that I believe Nee and Lee had a few compelling things to say should not bother you, however. Because that was not even my main point, and my point doesn't depend on it. My point was that, even giving them the benefit of the doubt, IT'S STILL NOT ABOUT THEM. It is always about the message. And the message should be strong enough to endure the failures and shortcomings of the messengers. So why bother to, tooth and nail, defend the reputations of Nee and Lee? I'm speaking to those in the LC movement, not to you. My point is that focusing on the message allows us to examine it objectively. Focusing on men, especially those we feel we need to cowtow to, pushes us to become subjective and accommodating about the message. This reaches it's extreme with Lee. His message is not questioned among LCers because of his reputation, not because the message itself is airtight. Do you have anything to say about that? Because that's what the thread is really about.