Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped
4. "safeguard for the unique ministry in the Lord's recovery" - what does this mean exactly? What is the Lord's recovery, defined? Again, if it goes back to Luther, then Lee/Nee cannot claim uniqueness in anything, and the ones upon whose shoulders they stood should be part of this ministry.
|
Using Martin Luther as the starting point of "Recovery" requires extensive historical revisionism. Without a doubt Luther stood with many Reformers across Europe to work with the Spirit of God. Luther himself, however, declared "
I am a Hussite" when he starkly realized that his faith and teachings merely duplicated that of the Bohemian martyr John Huss a century before him. And who was Huss's predecessor? You get the point.
Yes, the dark ages were dark indeed, but there never was a time when the faith or the scriptures were completely "lost" as Lee would want us to believe. In yet another irony, Martin Luther is simultaneously declared the first Minister of the Age (MOTA) and a total failure for the Lutheran state church. Supposedly he began the recovery but ruined the church. Oh well.
The tenets of the "Recovery" are built on the sinking sands of hagiography. It exists merely to serve the legitimacy needs of their MOTA. In principle there is no difference from the RCC's claim that Peter was their first Pope, and the recovery's claim that Luther was their first MOTA. Like the mythological lineage of popes, it really gets crazy when they attempt to establish the lineage of MOTAs after Luther. Anyone ever hear of Madame Guyon? Yep, a bona fide MOTA. Just ask LSM archivists.