[OBW]

Yeah,

And there are few, if any, that do not have some kind of error. But most of them provide what they teach, preach, or write with some humility of their position before God.

But I wouldn't read spiritual teaching by Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, or Robert Tilton. Wouldn't matter how good I might think some of their stuff might have been. The kind of exit from the stage (well, Swaggert just kept on going, but . . .) stands as the equivalent of one of Paul's "refuses." If I keep reading them, they are not refused.

Error is not necessarily a problem. It is the kind of error. Those that lead to questionings should be silenced. Those that merely get side issues wrong (or maybe right since it might be me that is wrong) are seldom the issue. And just because the guy drives too fast and gets a lot of tickets is not necessarily basis for refusal. Thumbing his nose at the law and not paying the fines might be.

Taking exception to a position is not necessarily a problem. Unless the one taking exception is trying to collect followers and needs a controversy — any controversy — to make a splash.

I read Jane's review of Hsu's book and it underscored for me that the very core of Nee's teaching was really just a good mind processing more stuff than most of us can comprehend, deciding what parts he liked best, synthesizing something that fit the world-view he already had, and creating a church with Chinese values, origin, and control.

I know that sounds flippant, but some recent studies of the younger generation has indicated that they are much better at obtaining and going through a lot of data in a hurry — even making decisions. But it seems that the missing ingredient is the kind of consideration it takes to make sound decisions. They are too often not willing to take the time to weigh the whole of the evidence and make a rational decision.

I'm not saying they can't, but that they too often don't.

And if Nee was really reading so many things so quickly and coming to conclusions, I can accept a peculiar mind that can rapidly glance at page after page and quote you any of it a long time later. But that does not mean that the will or ability to weigh competing arguments is equally engaged, or even willfully utilized. Rather, the evidence from reading some of his books is that he too often had is goal set and read the scripture (and rephrased it as he willed) to arrive at his pre-ordained conclusion.

It happened in Spiritual Authority. It happened in Further Talks on the Church Life. Some years ago, the chapter in which he dealt with the "church in a home" was analyzed. I recall that he essentially declared that the "city = church and church = city" rule was already established, so it couldn't mean what was being suggested. So without taking anything from these cases into consideration, he established one of the most fundamental cornerstones of LRC theology and used it to dismiss the contradicting evidence.

Now there is a real wise, righteous person. Maybe he was just deluded. Since he probably never studied logic in a concerted way, the seriousness of his error may not have been evident to him. But he started a movement with just such stuff.

(And then, maybe he knew exactly what he was doing. Maybe he once lay out in the grass under the stars and declared that one day he would lead an entire Christian organization. The suggestions from the other book were that he liked to be first — of prominence.)