Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
If you look at Nee's influences, they are all post-Reformation Protestant teachers (or Protestant spin-offs like the Brethren). The only exception I see is Guyon the French (Catholic) mystic. So what of the first 1,500 years of church history? Nothing noteworthy? Was the new move of God on earth founded upon so little?
You know, God can speak through anyone. God used unlettered Galilean fishermen. So I don't begrudge Nee, at all. He did well. But the LSM prattle of "Nee read all the Christian classics" rings pretty hollow, for me. The idea that he read everything worth reading, took the good from each and discarded the dross is simple myth-making. If you want to believe a story like that, you deserve what you get. Sorry to be so blunt. (and yes, I was there too. Mea culpa).
|
If the accounts are true, Nee's ability to read and retain information was no less than impressive. That being said, I think people were too quick to place their trust in Nee's supposed ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. Like anyone else, Nee was influenced by certain writings more than others. In no way would he have been able sift through
all the writings that hold value. There is just too much for any one person to have the ability to do that. What was seen instead within the LC was a hyper-focus on a small set of writings, deemed to be the most "valuable".
Who knows what the LC is missing out on. They are stuck with whoever Nee and Lee were influenced by. Nothing new can be appreciated. Lee himself said that there have been no "weighty" spiritual books published since the 40's (presumably he was excluding his own books from that statement).