Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
If you think I'm being hard on Darby, Lee held him as a 'pre-Nee' visionary of recovered truth, i.e. God's (sole) 'man of the hour', and history hasn't been so kind on Darby's inspirations, and the effect he had on his fellows.
Brethrenism "took shape under a delusion", as did the Lord's Recovery which followed it. The Bible became a vehicle for the concepts of men, and for their interpretations to be imposed upon others, smothering them and extinguishing the freedom of the Spirit.
|
Having read some of Anthony Groves' (
the earliest of the Brethren) views, Brethrenism was nothing like what the exclusives under Darby had fashioned it into. Many, many gifted men of God flocked together around these noble and scriptural ideals. Though Darby had many redeeming virtues, he did hijack the movement, established new exclusive principles of practice, and then "slaughtered" any and all perceived "rivals."
His extreme views have permanently shaped both Nee and Lee. All three eventually followed the same course of action. Initially they all left the existing systems, returning to the plain verses of the Bible, loving one another in assemblies, operating as "a" minister among many. Eventually they each created their own systems, where they were MOTA, the "acting god," and the deputy authority, ready to crush any and all who protested.
W. Blair Neatby,
A History of the Plymouth Brethren (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1901) is an excellent read for those having trouble understanding "what happened to the glorious churchlife," as I did years ago. (It was available free on line.) It is unfortunate, however, that my current "pay grade" prevented me from really understanding all he wrote. I would read some sections repeatedly with resource materials on hand, and I was just not bright enough to apprehend the complete import of his writing.