Pulled in Two Directions

[googlelight]

Originally Posted by aron

This is a challenging question. I'll offer my view. If you look at Peter in the NT, occasionally he channelled the divine, and sometimes he erred, even greatly. And David in the OT -same thing. These characters are representative of us all, and (so I believe) emblematic of humanity in toto. Only Jesus was, and is, without spot of error. In all cases of those who attempt to acknowledge, and confess, and obey, there's an admixture.

Luther "saw" faith as foundational to any work or act, yet his racist expressions towards the Jews was used by his countrymen to gird the holocaust. Billy Graham made mistakes, and he admitted. I've written things here with a bitter spirit, or adversarial attitude, or lack of grace. Everyone fails.

In the case of Nee, when he resumed his ministry, post scandal (sexual impropriety) he mandated centralization and absolute control, and effectively negated those generous and open statements you admire. It went by "the Jerusalem Principle" and "handing over". If you search you will find it. He overturned his earlier positions of localism and autonomy but subordinates didn't question the blatant reversal because their culture won't allow its leaders to lose face.

Likewise, Lee clearly had insight, at least in part. As he was a confessing believer, one can't say that he had no gifts. Again, his good work was marred by his inability to see the effect of culture on his organisational schema. If he as God's deputy wanted to set up a for-profit business with saints' $$ benefitting his progeny, that was his business. If he used 'training fees' to offset losses of said business, that was his purview. If he wanted to shuffle others' money between shell accounts, that was his business. If he wanted to characterise those who raised questions and/or objections as "rebels" that was his prerogative. And so on.

Again, his birth culture didn't permit openness or correction. If one's off by even a half-degree, and travels far enough, one's eventually off by a lot. And it's endemic to our species. Only Jesus never erred.

Today, their apologists try to brush it off with vagaries like, "Everyone makes mistakes" to cover Nee & Lee, and "There are bad people everywhere" to cover bad things which happen in their assemblies. But if that's sufficient to drop the complaints then why did Luther leave Catholicism, anyway? Why did Wesley speak up in the Church of England? Why did Nee and Lee leave their denominations? Those who critique should be critiqued. That goes for everyone, including me. Only Jesus is without sin.

Amen to what you wrote.
So you have gone this road before me, can I ask what you do today when it comes to church / church life?
I am considering getting together with 2-3 open brothers, and just pray. But it would be helpful, perhaps, to listen to your story post-recovery
Sincerely

[aron]

Originally Posted by googlelight

Amen to what you wrote.
So you have gone this road before me, can I ask what you do today when it comes to church / church life?
I am considering getting together with 2-3 open brothers, and just pray. But it would be helpful, perhaps, to listen to your story post-recovery

My story: I left because I was sick of sitting in the same chairs every week with the same few people, congratulating ourselves on arriving at the "high peaks" on the "proper ground" and our "oneness" and so forth. But our lives were not being metabolically transformed as the ministry had promised (my impression of course, but I came from Christianity and had basis for comparison), and our impact on the world was minimal if any. Jesus on the other hand had great impact. "Jesus went around doing good, because God was with him" said his close associate Peter, in summarising his ministry (Acts 10:38), but we were discouraged from "wasting our time" on "good works" - sorry, "dead works" - which we all knew, per Paul, that they were vain. (I guess Jesus and Peter didn't get the memo).

So I quit. There was no internet, I knew nothing of Daystar and Philip Lee, just rumors of "storms" far away. I thought I was sold-out but the Lord led me out anyway. Amazing in retrospect.

From there, I went into even more strict churches, where the women didn't speak in church because "it's in the Bible" and so forth. Eventually I got discouraged and dropped out, and stopped meeting anywhere, and became functionally agnostic. But over the years, I got nudged, and nudged...

Today, I just try to confess Jesus as Lord, risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of God in glory, and given dominion and a name which is above every name, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and any name which was or is or is to come. I try to receive all whom God has received in Jesus Christ, per Paul's word in Romans 15:7. And it's important to me today, not to passively wait for the "right Christians" to come along to meet with, but to actively reach out to those around me. Just like you see in the NT: Jesus reached the Samaritan woman where she was. He reached Peter casting a net in his boat. He reached people. Should not I trust this Christ? Should I not follow, and imitate, and obey?

And I find, like you did with your seemingly uncouth neighbour in post #8, that the rough ones are an opportunity to show grace (1 Cor 12:23). And as you forgive others, so God will forgive you. And if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will God forgive yours. Today I think that any supposed 'gap' between myself and that uncouth neighbour is probably less than the 'gap' between myself and God. So let the Lord cover the gap! His grace is sufficient.

שָׁלוֹם עֲלֵיכֶם