Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
Whether Nee or Lee, their opinions are received as fact. Speaking received from LSM leadership is considered coming from the spirit when in fact may be coming from the soul. It created a culture that is steeped in pride and lacking in humility.
You would never hear a blended or esteemed elder say, "I don't know if it's the Lord's leading, but in my opinion....."
There just isn't humility to consider their speaking may not be from the spirit.
|
Even Paul said, "This is my opinion..." (1 Cor 7:40). Yes, it was the opinion of one who had the Spirit of God, but Paul also had the humility to realize that his readers also had the Spirit of God. So he gave his opinion, as one who had been given some measure of grace, to others who also had a measure of grace.
In the LC we got, "this equals that". Not "in my opinion this is that", but "this is that". As if, the 'oracle' had now spoken and it was definitively settled. The God's Economy overlay, and many other teachings, were merely that: overlays, interpretations and teachings. There are other stories one may tell from the Word, but the LC is closed: if Lee spoke something, that's it; if he didn't speak, then it doesn't exist. It -even scripture - can then be either explained away, or ignored.
So behind the speaking and the teaching of "the ministry" was another speaking and teaching. "Don't be negative." "Don't think." "Be positive for the ministry." This is intellectual and even spiritual slavery. You deny, repress or ignore the spirit God gave you, to uncritically receive the one God gave Witness Lee.
Again, I think this can be traced back to Watchman Nee. Nee came under the subjectivist school of Father Fenelon, Madame Guyon, and Jessie Penn-Lewis. I am not saying those authors were evil, or should be ignored, but Nee was in a place with no center, and no direction, so he took this as his own. There was no corrective measure to guide him. No healthy church life to come to on Sunday morning to hear healthy words. Watchman Nee simply wasn't subject to peer review of any type or stripe. What I remember is Margaret Barber told him he shouldn't be reading Penn-Lewis, then gave it to him anyway. And off he went. Next thing you know, "Spiritual Man" is on the bookshelves.
Then, the combination of the widespread and deep resentment against the Western 'foreign devils' combined with the Brethren teachings gave him an excuse to start his own Oriental-flavored fellowship, dominated of course by his subjectivist school of thought. And in this fellowship, basically whatever he felt or thought was supposedly inspired by God. Yes he was guided by the word, and by Christian writings, but he was also guided and even controlled by fallen human culture coming through his fallen human soul. And eventually he built a temple to culture and the soul, with the drapery of spiritual imagery. But it was
his spiritual imagery; from his soul, and his culture. It was, simply, his opinion.
But it was sold as a one-for-one match with the Bible. It wasn't. So beware.