Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Jo S, Hi. Do you mean the NAR is a kindred spirit of the LR, or that it has an official association with it? I can believe the former, but the LR is not going to share the stage with anyone. If anything defines the LR, it's that they and they alone are the be all and end all.
The characteristics of extreme and abusive religious groups are common among them. Usually they are based in ideas of unique mission, superior doctrine and vision, and self-assumed, overbearing spiritual authority. Starting from there, whole labyrinths of abusive practices can develop, which are common to the groups--essentially rooted in the compromise of the individual conscience.
|
Igzy, the thing is NAR isn't an organization and therefore does not have formal membership. It's quite simply a phenomenon. Just as an individual within the LR wouldn't consider themselves as being anything other than a Christian so it is with those influenced by NAR. And as with most other sweeping movement within Christianity, they also consider themselves be all and end all. So I don't see any distinction there other than the LR hasn't realized they're just a small part of a much bigger operation because of being so infectively sheltered from the rest of Christendom. The only thing I can think of that would keep the LR in an exclusivist mindset and stand in opposition to the rest of the NAR movement is if in fact the LR is one of the early progenitors of NAR and pridefully try to retain all the "glory" for themselves. Just a thought. I haven't yet researched enough to say for sure but one of the main proponents of NAR, C Peter Wagner, seems to think that the Chinese house movement of the early 1970's (if I'm not mistaken influenced Lee's LR) is at the root of it all.