Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
aron,
While I observe the differentiation of outcome for Erasmus and Luther, and wonder if things might have been better for all if Luther had not accepted the protection of the German government and departed, in our current state of affairs how does one determine what is the place to stay?
There is evidence within the RCC that things are not simply stagnant, nor that they only go downhill. But they do not move quickly to change. so has Martin Luther stayed the course, he or his thoughts might have had to outlive a pope to become seriously debated and considered, and possibly added to the teachings. But through his own exit, he help create the current system in which all groups, new or old, are prone to stick to their ways and let those who disagree just keep quiet or leave. So when things get really bad, rather than having a self-correcting system of open discussion — even of issues that are contentious — they (we) all tend to take a position, close our eyes and ears, and run off anyone who disagrees.
|
I know there are people out there who'd condemn the bolded part above, as the musings of an armchair warrior. They would say that Luther was a "lover of Christ who gave his all and offered a sweet fragrance to the Lord". Etc.
But we have the benefit of history, and time, and we should use it. It is not sacrilegious to ask such questions, and to pose such "counterfactuals" in history. To ask "what if". If nothing else it makes us a little more humble, and not so quick to leap to the conclusion that we are right, and wearing white hats, and the other party is black as sin itself. I think that contention is a tricky business. Surely I as a poster here have been outspoken, repeatedly, but at the same time I hope to always try to remember that "the other guy" is still arguably my neighbor.
I really know too little of the story: did Luther really try to remain, or was there some other force(s) at work? Did Nee really try to work it out with the Protestants, or was he seeking an excuse to jump ship and start his own thing, with himself as Top Dog (naturally)? I can neither condemn nor excuse... I truly don't know. My own motives here are likewise not always pristine -- maybe sometimes I just want to vent instead of closing the door and praying to the Father who is in secret. Maybe I just want to preen and puff up my "knowledge" in front of an audience. Who knows? So a little circumspection is in order.
But I will say this: if you read Luther's last letters blasting Erasmus for betraying "the cause" (Reformation), and read Erasmus' reply, it looks like Luther is the foaming madman and Erasmus has retained his sanity. Not only that, but Luther's stance regarding the European Jewry, and his indifference to the tens of thousands who were butchered in the peasant uprisings which followed his political/religious unrest, reveal him as not God's Man of the Hour. Luther was just another bozo on the bus, doing his best. Likewise if you read Nee's later work it seems that he really forgot all about Jesus Christ in his attempt to reconcile his movement ("the Church") with the onrushing Communist Party ("the State"). His writings to me show no light at all. A lamentable darkness, in fact. But would I have done worse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I applaud those who remain where they are not entirely in agreement. But that is generally meaningful and successful where the differences are on the table, not hidden in a closet. Where the Pentecostal guy is more than just attending a decidedly non-Pentecostal assembly. (teaching, even leading, but able to abide by the doctrinal statement) But I am not sure that I can agree to continue to abide by a doctrinal standard that is as errant as that of the LRC just because I was already there when I realized how off it was. If I had know in advance, I would never have darkened the door. Why does the historical fact that I did darken their door make me somehow under obligation to stay? Maybe we just assert that I was visiting — for 14 years.
|
The problem here, as I see it, is that we are trying to move from specifics to generalities, and back and forth. It can get strange quickly. Surely there are cases where the HS says "Leave". And others where the word is unequivocally "Stay". As one who shuttled from Protestantism to the Local Churches and back, if anyone should have circumspection here, it is I. And as our friend "Unregistered" pointed out, it is often the people who are rootless, not stable, the proverbial lost sheep, that get tossed to and fro in the welter of ideas around them. Surely that was me as well; I have shared my testimony.
But Paul did write that if God called you as a slave, remain as a slave. If you were called while married to an unbeliever, that is God's problem, not yours. Surely Luther, and Nee, and other "schizmatics" should really ponder these ideas carefully. I will at least say that much. I do know that it is useful to find a forum to put my thoughts in the open. Luther didn't have a discussion forum; we do.