Is it the Message, or the Men?

[Cal]

Ultimately, people have to make up their own minds about the LC and why they choose to remain in it. I'm sure there are many who feel that a good work is being done there. At some point, however, thoughtful Christians have to ask themselves if the priorities of the group are not in conflict with its stated mission, which is to spread their vision. It is my contention that seeking to preserve false reputations of Nee and Lee, erasing and doctoring history, is counter to that mission in its purest form.

The LC has shown it can spread to a certain degree, but only to the extent they lift up Nee and Lee and cause people to revere and fear to contradict them. This has been quite effective with a tiny minority, but it will never be effective with a significant number. Once you move outside the fringe, you encounter people who expect a message that can stand up to a challenge. Telling these people not to dare contradict the Minister of the Age will be met with dumbfoundedness, if not laughter and derision.

The LC, in the end, will never be more than a blip because it never set out on a path to be anything but that. When push came to shove, ironically they chose the easy path. Instead of stepping up into the messy real world where the arena of ideas is a level playing field and nothing is guaranteed including respect for pet doctrines, they chose the path of continual preaching to whatever choir would not ask questions.

LCers will tell themselves that they are the remnant, the chosen few willing to pay the price. But in fact, they didn't pay the price. Paying the price would have meant being willing to be completely honest about everything and live with the consequences.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ultimately, people have to make up their own minds about the LC and why they choose to remain in it. I'm sure there are many who feel that a good work is being done there. At some point, however, thoughtful Christians have to ask themselves if the priorities of the group are not in conflict wit the stated mission, which is to spread their vision. It is my contention that seeking to preserve false reputations of Nee and Lee, erasing and doctoring history, is counter to that mission in its purest form.

LCers will tell themselves that they are the remnant, the chosen few willing to pay the price. But in fact, they didn't pay the price. Paying the price would have meant being willing to be completely honest about everything and live with the consequences.

Recently I have been in touch with a few old friends who expressed an interest in attending Ron Kangas' pending conference in Cleveland. They would say that they paid a hefty price to pursue the Lord in the LC's. But, since they were not remotely involved with the activities in Anaheim, they would disagree that they have any responsibility to dig into those details or make them known. They also would say that it is all about "the message" and not the man, since Lee is dead.

Ironically, it now seems to be LSM which stresses Christ, the word, and the LC's, while life under the direction of TC in Cleveland has become all about "The Work." Quite a reversal from the rhetoric of the past.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They would say that they paid a hefty price to pursue the Lord in the LC's.

Well, everyone pays some price for whatever they do. The price I was talking about is the one you pay to do the right thing.

But, sice they were not remotely involved with the activities in Anaheim, they would disagree that they have any responsibility to dig into those details or make them known.

I'm not talking about digging anything up, I'm talking about acknowledging what is undeniable, and being open to acknowledge what is likely. In other words, being honest and responsible.

They also would say that it is all about "the message" and not the man, since Lee is dead.

The first admission of any LCer should be that the MOTA teaching was designed to control and manipulate people, and to cover up weaknesses in the message. If they can't admit that, there is no point in discussing the message with them in the first place, because to the degree they believe MOTA to that degree (at least) they will be irrational.

[Cal]

BTW, I wanted to add a thought for OBW. I think a major difference between Nee and Lee and other Christian teachers who may have emphasized many of the "deeper" things they did (as opposed, for example, to the typical fare of evangelical churches), is that Nee and Lee raised up many churches which they directed to teach and think like they did. Other teachers, Penn-Lewis, Andrew Murray, etc, were prolific, but did not start a movement of churches. Tozer and Sparks each led one church, but only Nee and Lee dispensed their teachings into many churches which in turn reflected their worldview. This is a rather unique situation with unique consequences. The other teachers did not really discriminate about who they ministered to, Nee and Lee did. Their interest was always in raising up a movement which remained pure to their vision, rather than simply casting their bread upon the water.

Because of this, their teaching had a much more focused impact. Though "inner life" teachings have to a degree meandered their way into mainstream Christianity, their concentration and impact is not as severe as Nee and Lee were on their dedicated audience. This adds to the overstated impression that Nee and Lee had something "unique" to say. But, actually, most things truly "unique" to the Recovery are associated with error.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

BTW, I wanted to add a thought for OBW. I think a major difference between Nee and Lee and other Christian teachers who may have emphasized many of the "deeper" things they did (as opposed, for example, to the typical fare of evangelical churches), is that Nee and Lee raised up many churches which they directed to teach and think like they did. Other teachers, Penn-Lewis, Andrew Murray, etc, were prolific, but did not start a movement of churches. Tozer and Sparks each led one church, but only Nee and Lee dispensed their teachings into many churches which in turn reflected their worldview. This is a rather unique situation with unique consequences. The other teachers did not really discriminate about who they ministered to, Nee and Lee did. Their interest was always in raising up a movement which remained pure to their vision, rather than simply casting their bread upon the water.

Because of this, their teaching had a much more focused impact. Though "inner life" teachings have to a degree meandered their way into mainstream Christianity, their concentration and impact is not as severe as Nee and Lee were on their dedicated audience. This adds to the overstated impression that Nee and Lee had something "unique" to say. But, actually, most things truly "unique" to the Recovery are associated with error.

I would say that this is a relatively sound way to put it. And my thoughts about the writers that I prefer to read (although I must admit that my appetite for reading is often diminished between too much eye strain looking at tax laws and returns on a computer all day and allergies) are of the kind that are often preachers at a single church and write. Swindol, Alcorn, Driscoll, Bell (Rob, not Michael), McKnight, Spencer, McLaren, Tickle, Fitch, and others. Some of the readers here probably have no idea who some of those are. I will admit at least two of those are very controversial, and I am very careful as I read them not to get sucked-in to something that could be error — in some ways as bad or worse than Lee. We'll leave it at that.

But while these people influence their readers, those readers generally remain within some group that provides a base and framework within which to assess what they read. It is only when, as you say, the readers become a collection of direct followers that there begin to be real problems (at least potentially) especially when other sources of spiritual diet are removed.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would say that this is a relatively sound way to put it. And my thoughts about the writers that I prefer to read (although I must admit that my appetite for reading is often diminished between too much eye strain looking at tax laws and returns on a computer all day and allergies) are of the kind that are often preachers at a single church and write. Swindol, Alcorn, Driscoll, Bell (Rob, not Michael), McKnight, Spencer, McLaren, Tickle, Fitch, and others. Some of the readers here probably have no idea who some of those are. I will admit at least two of those are very controversial, and I am very careful as I read them not to get sucked-in to something that could be error — in some ways as bad or worse than Lee. We'll leave it at that.

But while these people influence their readers, those readers generally remain within some group that provides a base and framework within which to assess what they read. It is only when, as you say, the readers become a collection of direct followers that there begin to be real problems (at least potentially) especially when other sources of spiritual diet are removed.

Can you provide the first names of these teachers, too, so I can look them up. Thanks!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Can you provide the first names of these teachers, too, so I can look them up. Thanks!

The list was off the top of my head and was far from all. But these were either more notable, or more recent.

Charles (Chuck) Swindol ((might be 2 Ls) Frisco Bible Church, current or former Dallas Theo Chancellor or something like that)
Randy Alcorn (Can't remember much of his creditials. But he has several well-known books out there.)
Mark Driscoll (not a lot from this one and is recently somewhat controversial)
Rob Bell (of Velvet Elvis, and more recently Love Wins fame - or infamy)
Scot McKnight (Preacher, writer, college professor)
Michael Spencer (preacher and orignal "Internet Monk" (he is not Catholic); only wrote one book - Mere Churchianity; died in 2011)
Brian McLaren (highly controversial. Read to discover the appeal and to decide where "Emergent" theology was going)
Phyllis Tickle (Magazine and book editor, and writer on Christian trends)
David Fitch (Seminary professor. Writes on postmodernism, post-Christendom (meaning the forms, not the essence of being Christian))

Of the ones I listed, I take Swindol as a serious, regular guy among us.
McKnight is trying to re-engage people with Christ and the mission of the church.
Fitch is critiquing what seems (to him) to be misaiming in the forms and practices of the church.
The others are mostly to challenge me to think. Even the highly questionable McLaren raises issues that are seriously worthy of thinking about. The problem with him is that he so often does not say anything about what he thinks on the issues. Then when he finally does . . . run for the hills!!

I would have listed others but the names would not come to me. That seems to be a regular thing with me. I remember by use and names I don't use are forgotten. Often can't remember the names of famous secular writers of books I have read.

[Elden1971]

Originally Posted by Igzy

BTW, I wanted to add a thought for OBW. I think a major difference between Nee and Lee and other Christian teachers who may have emphasized many of the "deeper" things they did (as opposed, for example, to the typical fare of evangelical churches), is that Nee and Lee raised up many churches which they directed to teach and think like they did. Other teachers, Penn-Lewis, Andrew Murray, etc, were prolific, but did not start a movement of churches. Tozer and Sparks each led one church, but only Nee and Lee dispensed their teachings into many churches which in turn reflected their worldview. This is a rather unique situation with unique consequences. The other teachers did not really discriminate about who they ministered to, Nee and Lee did. Their interest was always in raising up a movement which remained pure to their vision, rather than simply casting their bread upon the water.

Because of this, their teaching had a much more focused impact. Though "inner life" teachings have to a degree meandered their way into mainstream Christianity, their concentration and impact is not as severe as Nee and Lee were on their dedicated audience. This adds to the overstated impression that Nee and Lee had something "unique" to say. But, actually, most things truly "unique" to the Recovery are associated with error.

A little leaven....leavens the whole lot...

[awareness]

Is it the Message, or the Men?

While checking out the list of LSM churches I caught a blurb on the left of the site.

I clicked and went to this link:
http://www.watchman-nee.net/

On this site "it's the man" Watchman Nee. This is obviously a Living Stream/Lee/Blended bros. story.

In this story of Watchman Nee he has to be "consecrated to the Lord even before birth," I guess this is the LSM version of a virgin birth.

And he has to be:
"keenly intelligent" and, "an exceptional student, always ranking first in his class as well as in the entire school from grade school through college."

And:
"he acquired an exceptional knowledge concerning God's purpose, Christ, the Spirit, and the church through his study of the Bible as well as the writings of spiritual men and women. During his early ministry, he spent one-third of his income on books by Christian authors such as D.M. Panton, Robert Govett, G.H. Pember, Jessie Penn-Lewis, T. Austin-Sparks, John Nelson Darby, William Kelly, and C.H. Mackintosh. He was brilliantly gifted in his ability to select, comprehend, discern, and memorize appropriate material. Watchman Nee gleaned all the good, scriptural points from his collection of over 3,000 of the best Christian books, including nearly all the classical Christian writings from the first century on. In addition to the spiritual knowledge he gained, he received much spiritual edification and perfection early in his Christian life from Margaret E. Barber ..."

In other words Nee had to have a "gifted mental apprehension of God's truth" ... the very claim M.E. Barber made of him and Faithful Luke in her private letter in 1926.

So this is all about "the man." Lee's Recovery movement depends on "the man," Nee, being exceptionally gifted mentally.

This means that to them it's important that Nee was guided by his intellectual abilities first and foremost. Just as Barber stated of him.

Originally Posted by Ohio

... while life under the direction of TC in Cleveland has become all about "The Work." Quite a reversal from the rhetoric of the past.

Ohio, what does this mean?