Quote:
Nee's Hermeneutics
Nee had a high respect for the authority of Scripture and considered every detail to be important. In Rethinking the Work, he wrote: We must remember the divine economy of words in Scripture, and we must realize that neither the occurrence, nor the record of it, was accidental. There is no room for chance happenings or unimportant records in Gods Word. All that is written there is written for our learning, and even a seemingly casual remark may enfold a precious lesson.[29] Especially with regard to ecclesiology, he believed that Scripture teaches by way of example as much as by precept. Though circumstances may differ, the initial principles communicated largely by way of example in the book of Acts and other historical passages remain valid, and thus it is incumbent on modern-day disciples to search for clues, uncover these principles, and diligently apply them in their own context.[30] If anything, Nee may be accused of being over-meticulous in his desire to faithfully follow the example of Scripture. Kinnear opines: When it came to ecclesiology his chief weakness (but one in which down the ages he has had plenty of company) lay in treating as mandatory the principles he had derived merely from New Testament example.[31]
|
I believe that Nee's approach to scripture was actually weakness of his, even a big trap. It is dangerous to assume that everything has a hidden meaning, or to think that "casual remarks" should always be viewed as being more than casual. What this type of thinking led to for both Nee and Lee is that they began to view themselves as holding the key to "unlock" the Bible. Subjective interpretation became the norm.
It seems that with Nee's ecclesiology, the goal was to literally practice what he saw in the New Testament, without taking into account
context or possible
exceptions. For example, why did Nee de-emphasize the house churches so much? When Paul addressed an epistle "
To Philemon... and to the church in your house", why was something like that never taken into account by Nee as being an exception to his rule of identifying churches by the city in which they are located? Needless to say, I'm not so sure that Nee cared about identifying the alternatives, he might have just wanted a convenient way to impose church structure, or to develop a movement. He hated the denominations and the church structures of the West. So he occupied himself with trying to find something better. The ground of locality is what he came up with. It's too bad he didn't foresee all the trouble it would cause.