Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
As Chang notes, yes a lot of the groups such as the charismatics and free groups went on to ‘organize’ themselves, but I think that is rather insignificant, and not really contradictory. At a basic level, I don’t see such groups as having had a specific goal to avoid eventual organization. Mainly, they wanted to be free from the more traditional things. Practically speaking, as groups grow, it’s only expected that some amount of organization would become necessary. Even the LC had every reason to expect the same. The problem with the LC is that WL harshly attacked ‘organization’ even though he went on to do just that. And as Ohio has noted before, WL also went so far as to label free groups as 'incestuous'. WL painted the LC as a group above all others, and that is why WL’s criticism of Christianity cannot be contextualized.
|
It has long been my understanding that Lee's entire "denominational" paradigm was receive from Nee, whose views basically reflected the contemporary Chinese mindset towards Western culture, post Boxer rebellion.
aron has recently posted many thoughtful observations to provide support to this conclusion. In order to condemn western churches, and yet receive western Christian writings, Nee also developed the saying that they "stand on the shoulders" of Christian ministers before them. So nice to have things both ways.
Lee's comments about "denominations" pervade his early writings in the US. By the time he began speaking the Life Studies, these comments were for the most part irrelevant. Denominations were declining, and new born believers (
like myself) everywhere were seeking new venues to pursue their Savior. This is why I find it almost ludicrous for some of the posters here to continus to reference Lee's denominational mindset as if it were still relevant. It's like they are 17th century Anabaptist Amish still reading about organized church oppression in north central Europe. They really need to get out more.
One of my points here is that Lee's vast volume of writing have far less original thought then I once believed. His views towards the ecclesiastical structure of the greater body of Christ in the US were completely out-of-date as he ministered in the US. He could find nothing in either Nee's writings nor Brethren writings which he could apply (i.e. "stand on") to that current situation. The move of the Spirit was all together new, and though his LC's greatly benefited from it, he was also threatened by it. His perceived "enemy" had taken on a new fresh face.
So, Lee used the old Exclusive Brethren tried and true method of applying some "rotten" O.T. type to your perceived enemies. Thus, perhaps for the first time, we see Lee's attempt at
original allegorical hermeneutics, using some O.T. story which directly applied to his perceived enemy to the Recovery -- spontaneous gatherings of new born seeking Christians -- who could no longer be classified under the umbrella of the "evil denominations." Lee's new found "original thought" was despicable, labeling these "free group" gatherings as the incestuous children of Lot conceived in a cave escaping God's judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah -- sort of like today's "cavemen" from those Geico commercials.
Besides all the hypocrisy surrounding LSM, what causes me to mourn their long-standing position was the fact that they never knew who their real enemy was. Our real enemy cannot be seen. Our real enemy is not men, least of all those of the household of faith. In order to promote their own agendas, Exclusives, from the time of Newton's and Muller's excommunications in the mid-1840's, have always erected walls around their congregations claiming "
bogey men are out there," and holding their people in fear. The history always follows the same pattern: Use a move of the Spirit birthed out of social unrest, return to the pure word of God, enjoy a blessed time while the power structure develops, expel perceived rivals, close the doors, claim to be the guardians of the truth. Repeat.