Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
An irony of church history is that we celebrate those who once had the temerity to question the status quo, and dogma of the age, but forbid anyone to question our own dogmas, today. Case in point: Martin Luther questioned the RCC & left to form his own sect, then Nee questioned Luther's Protestant heirs and did likewise, all of which was good and necessary for God to do anything (so the story goes). But how dare we, today, question Nee's ideas?!? Once Nee showed up - that's it. No more questioning.
|
W. Nee only did what Luther had done before him. When Luther's contemporary Ulrich Zwingli came along in neighboring Switzerland, Luther would not extend to him the arm of fellowship. In their famous meeting, Luther and Zwingli agreed on 14.5 of 15 points of discussion, only to disagree on the Table bread, with Luther insisting on transubstantiation and Zwingli consubstantiation. Like Nee and Lee, Luther wanted no rivals, nor peers.
I never did like Luther to be considered as Nee's "Father of the Recovery." Luther himself credited John Huss before him, and many of Luther's contemporaries were far more spiritual. Labeling Luther as such reckoned him the modern day Abraham, the father of faith. Nee/Lee's simplified "recovery" church history was steeped in self-serving errors, the chief of which was the lineage of MOTA's. Lee then upended that whole MOTA genealogy paradigm by claiming that "the era of spiritual giants is over," thus introducing the "Blended" era of church ecclesiology for the new Millenia.