Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Freedom,
You have an idea and are speculating and making stuff up to fit your narrative.
What we have is a perfectly consistent teaching on the ground of the church from Brother Nees earlier writing to his latter writings. What Brother Nee would have thought later after prison is irrelevant and your surmising what Brother Nee would have thought is unfounded. Furthermore, Brother Nees teaching on the ground of the church is consistent in content to what Brother Lee taught.
You want a Brother Nee of your own concepts not the Brother Nee whose beliefs on the ground of the church strengthened as time went by.
Concerning consistency.... I would hope that after decades of experience that revelation and insight would progress. My views, and I am sure yours, have evolved and matured at least in some measure over the course of your Christian life.
Drake
|
Speculate is all that we can do because Nee isn't alive to clarify his real views. My speculation is based on the fact that among Nee's close coworkers, Lee was the only one who emphasized a specific view of locality. That kind of discrepancy is fair game for speculation.
Interestingly, I haven't heard anyone who is defending Lee offer up any kind of explanation as to why some of Nee's other coworkers didn't agree with what Lee wanted. In the past, I heard generic explanations like they didn't "see the ground." But that doesn't get to the root of the issue. They were all there, they all heard what Nee taught, but they walked away with different ideas. Why should Lee's views be given precedence over the views of anyone else?
Lastly, I am not following Nee (or Lee), so what Nee was taught concerning the ground makes no difference to me. It doesn't matter to me whether Nee and Lee did or didn't teach the exact same thing. So I have no motivation to construct a false narrative of Nee. All I am doing here is commenting on the similarities and differences between the different groups that began with Nee.