Accepting and Receiving Believers in Christ

[OBW]

I have no problem with viewing Nee apart from Lee. Lee was an authoritarian who demanded that his version of "truth" was correct and that all others were wrong. And he found ways to make the scripture condemn those who disagreed with him.

Nee was entirely different. Well, mostly different.

But the difference is mostly in how he pushed his teachings. Nee put them out there and said "take it or leave it." He was even mostly clear that he did not judge people for disagreeing.

But that is not entirely true. When the example of Romans 14 is mentioned in NCCL, Nee agrees that we should not judge. But when examples are given — ones like being vegetarian or Sabattarian — the part that is skipped is what to do if those that hold those views teach them and encourage others with them within your assembly. I realize that these are poor examples. They aren't even points of the faith. And maybe that is exactly what Nee is doing ... tiptoeing around a real controversy by putting out something that is not a currently relevant point. In the 1st century church, following or not following Jewish or even other religious practices was a current challenge.

And Nee soft-pedals on it. But there is no evidence that he ever faced a real conflict of doctrine within his group. He was clear that he had no say over the positions of others (and that is good). But he carries on as if within those accepting his teaching, all will always be accepted.

Now that is clearly different than Lee. But it misses the whole point of whether the teaching that Nee is pushing is actually correct. That is one of the purposes of this forum. So far, some have brought out some nice sounding passages from Nee's books and fallen all over them as if they are manna from heaven.

Every time I open one of Nee's books due to the recommendation of someone on this forum (or the other forum) I keep finding faulty handling of scripture at the very start of each such book. I have read some of Nee, but it has been a long time. So even if I have read it, I have to go back and read again. Since the first chapter is so consistently the place that the premises of the book are introduced, I have carefully observed how he moves from scripture to premise. So far, I have found little to recommend in his findings. Instead, I have found re-writing of scripture to fit the premise, telling stories to provide an overlay that is made to be the way to understand scripture, and mentioning of scripture but little or no effort to demonstrate how the verses connect to or support the premises.

Therefore, despite Nee's entirely better approach to laying his teachings out (not dogmatic and insisting) I tend to find his teachings to be hollow, anecdotal, and even cultural — all wrapped in Christian and scriptural terminology — but not profoundly Christian. The inner-life books might all be acceptable within a Christian framework, but not authoritative. Those that cover things doctrinal and ecclesiological are entirely too removed from actual scriptural support to be taken as serious theology. And even though the word "theology" might be disdained, it is precisely what books like NCCL, Further Talks, Spiritual Authority, and others are.