Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped
First of all, I knew that each “side” would see different things from this passage before I posted it, but I think there are good points for both sides to consider.
Regarding Evangelical’s response, Nee clearly is referring to the local churches in many parts of the excerpt. Who else is the “we” in underline below referring to?
“If we look on other believers as sectarian and consider ourselves to be non-sectarian, we are immediately differentiating between God’s people and thereby manifesting a divisive spirit even in the very act of condemning division. No matter by what means we distinguish between the members of God’s family—even if it be on the pretext of Christ Himself—we are guilty of schism in the Body.”
“Denominations are not scriptural, and we ought to have no part in them, but if we adopt an attitude of criticism and think, “They are denominational; I am undenominational. They belong to sects; I belong to Christ alone”—such differentiating is definitely sectarian.”
I actually think this might be what I was looking for regarding this topic. Nee’s speaking was clear, positive, and inclusive but very cautionary about our attitude of others and our criticism of others. But Lee took that exact attitude of criticism! What else can you describe “poor, poor Christianity” as?
Nee seemed to ride the line of being doctrinally clear without allowing that to become a division, but Lee somehow turned it in a way that made it divisive/sectarian.
Additionally this bombshell: “If when we say “our brethren,” we do not include all the children of God, but only those who continually meet with us, then we are schismatic.” THIS DESCRIBES THE LOCAL CHURCHES TO A TEE!!!!!!!!!!! There it is! WOW. WOW. I missed that sentence the first time around but what a sentence!! The LC use of the phrase “the Body” overwhelmingly refers to just the saints in the LCs.
|
There are two ways to be divisive - one in practice, and one in attitude. Here Nee is addressing a divisive attitude, for the "we" i.e. those in the local church. But no where does he condone division in practice, and even himself defines the differences between a genuine local church and sects. When reading or quoting the words of anyone, it's important to see where they are coming from. Nee comes from the view that the local church is the genuine church. Nee was for the idea that the local church, one church per city is the genuine church, and everything he wrote is in that context. Similarly, if Nee was a Catholic, then anything he wrote about sectarianism and division would be with respect to the view that the Catholic church is the true church.