[Freedom]

Matthew 7:15-20
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

With respect to what Jesus said in Matthew 7, something occurred to me. Part of the reason that Jesus might have taught that you can know a tree by its fruit is simply because there is not necessarily an implicit expectation that everyone would readily know the truth or to be able to discern it. Both Nee and Lee introduced questionable teachings that had some amount of scriptural basis, and they could at least they could make an argument according to the scripture for their teachings. Thus, in order to refute some things that Nee and Lee taught can be a draw out process of deconstructing their arguments. Sometimes just pointing to the fruit is enough to refute a teaching or practice.

What about teachings that seem absurd at first glance, should they be immediately rejected? In John 6:55 Jesus made a radical statement - “For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.” Many had just thought that Jesus was just some kind of prophet, so when they heard this some disciples who were not of the twelve stopped following him. It goes without saying that they assumed he was either crazy or was teaching something not according to what they felt to be true.

Those who knew Jesus for who he really was had a different reaction as what was expressed by Peter in John 6:68 - But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” My point is here is that some of Jesus’ disciples were willing to accept something that would have been utterly perplexing to them simply because they knew Jesus for who he really was. They saw his works and they saw the good fruit of his ministry. It's fair to note, however, that not everyone recognized Jesus for who he was by the fruit of his ministry.

The point I’m trying to make here is not that every Joe Schmo preacher or teacher who says something ridiculous needs to be paid attention to. Not at all. What I think is that there may quite a bit more importance on evaluating a teacher by their fruit above any other standard.

During his lifetime, Lee essentially said that he was a modern day prophet by claiming to be God’s oracle. Should everyone in the LC have immediately rejected that? I would say that many in the LC thought that he really was a prophet, so there wasn't necessarily grounds for those within the LC to immediately reject such a claim. Looking back, it can be said that by Lee’s fruit he was revealed to be a false prophet in certain respects. His fruit exposed him for who he really was. Just compare Lee to Billy Graham. Billy Graham is well-known almost entirely by the fruit of his ministry. What is Lee known for? Sad to say, those outside the LC who have even heard of Lee probably know him best for the trail of division he left behind.