By their fruits will you know them

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

Does the fruit of a practice really dictate how to understand it? Are we really sure that the practice is the problem? Or is it something else?
…
The real issue is whether there is really such a construct or it is a fantasy devised first by Nee and then strengthened by Lee that just does not represent anything that the Bible actually teaches, directly or indirectly. If it is garbage teaching, then there is no reason to need to argue over what is responsible for the fruit in question. It doesn't deserve a hearing on the fruit issue. It gets booted on the truth issue.

Originally Posted by Nell

Without Scriptural backing, any teaching put forth as "Christian teaching" is in fact false, fantasy, even heretical. Bad fruit is a symptom of false teaching. In that sense, the fruit isn't the problem. The problem is the junk teaching.

Originally Posted by aron

Where the string of bad fruit comes in, is that it helps us re-evaluate the teaching. When WL had us convinced that the teaching was the Truth with a capital "T", then we could pass off all the bad fruit as the bumbling efforts of mooing cows that couldn't dance while he played piano. (I think that was the imagery). So the bad fruit was the fault of the bumbling disciples and not the teacher. We ignored the bad fruit and continued to cling to the bad teaching that produced it.

I’m starting this thread to discuss a topic that has been raised in a different thread. That is the question of the extent to which you should evaluate someone (and the teachings/practices they introduce) by their fruit alone.

The way I approach the issue as someone who has the background of a LC upbringing is that in some respects I have had no choice but to evaluate certain teachings and practices by their fruit. For example, long before I ever questioned the scriptural basis of the ground of locality doctrine, I could see the fruit of division that it caused. Before I ever knew what deputy authority was, I knew the detrimental effects of the teaching and how it was practiced.

Nee and Lee have both been evaluated from the outside on an apologetic level. I would ask, has such an evaluation led to a desirable conclusion? I would say the answer is no, at least with respect to what the CRI did. On the other hand evaluating the LCM by their fruits alone could also possibly lead to a false conclusion if you don’t look at the entire picture. For example, the ground of locality has resulted in a network of churches across the globe, any of which a member could expect to receive hospitality at. I see it as a 2 sided coin.