Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
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).
|
Of all the things Lee said, that is "top ten" list-worthy of most delusional. I've read books & articles by scholars who study texts in the original languages, and who have studied writings by other scholars who'd likewise studied these texts in original form, along with the early commentaries from the first centuries to the present, and who then present all this study to the reading public. Maybe one has to slog through obscure footnotes and references, and ignore quotations in original Hebrew or Greek, and have the stomach to tough it out. But if so, there's a gold mine waiting. Of course some is obscure, some is flat-out wrong, some is rabbit-trails. Of course. It always is. But a curious mind will be quite compensated, I assure you. Only one who doesn't look will come away empty. Everyone else, who seeks will indeed find.
Scholarship since the 1940s to today is like comparing biplanes to 747s. They both fly, they both will get you from New York to Paris, but there's a big difference. They're both valid, even arguably adequate in some circumstances, but to pretend that flight hasn't advanced since 1949 is a fantasy world statement. Likewise with scholarship - somebody showed Lee his own press clippings - "minister of the age" - and he believed it.
In the LC you essentially get nothing outside of Protestant and Post-Protestant (i.e. Brethren) thought, circa 1525 - 1925. See, for example, Andrew Murray (1828-1917). Maybe a couple Catholic mystics. That's it - other than that, they suppose everything is either darkness or irrelevant. It's like, once Watchman Nee started getting "light", everyone else lost the capacity to think.