Double Standards

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee's so-called "high peak" (God became man to make man god.) was never in the Bible in the first place, so how could it get recovered? Lee skirted that problem by citing a quotation from Athanasius. Thus what he proposed was a "recovery" of the church fathers, not of the scripture.

Readers will be familiar with my occasionally waxing poetic over the Church Fathers, an area of textual reference vastly overlooked and underutilized in the Protestant tradition. The 'sola scriptora' folk will say, "But it's not in the Bible" if one leans too heavily upon, or gives too much credence to the teachings and interpretations of the ancients.

Lee was fully in this Calvinistic vein: if one waved ideas "not from the Bible" before him, they were summarily dismissed as the imaginations of men. Paradoxically, Lee then pinned his so-called high peak theology on one of these Fathers, not on scripture. Talk about a double-standard!

I do appreciate the Fathers much more today than previously, and hold them to a standard of great admiration, respect, and reference them as those having access to oral traditions and private teachings that were lost over time. Thus they open a window into the past, otherwise inaccessible. But I could present many, many teachings and sayings of the Fathers which the LC people wouldn't have even the slightest interest in, because, "it's not in the Bible"...

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Readers will be familiar with my occasionally waxing poetic over the Church Fathers, an area of textual reference vastly overlooked and underutilized in the Protestant tradition. The 'sola scriptora' folk will say, "But it's not in the Bible" if one leans too heavily upon, or gives too much credence to the teachings and interpretations of the ancients.

Lee was fully in this Calvinistic vein: if one waved ideas "not from the Bible" before him, they were summarily dismissed as the imaginations of men. Paradoxically, Lee then pinned his so-called high peak theology on one of these Fathers, not on scripture. Talk about a double-standard!

I do appreciate the Fathers much more today than previously, and hold them to a standard of great admiration, respect, and reference them as those having access to oral traditions and private teachings that were lost over time. Thus they open a window into the past, otherwise inaccessible. But I could present many, many teachings and sayings of the Fathers which the LC people wouldn't have even the slightest interest in, because, "it's not in the Bible"...

Lee was also very selective with whose writings were considered acceptable in general. It seems Lee referenced very few post-19th century works. He even said "From 1945 to 1984, I found out that in both the English-speaking world and the Chinese-speaking world, there was not a weighty spiritual book published."

So why did Lee get to determine which writings were and weren't useful? Also, why could he get away with referencing such a small set of writings in general?

[Intothewind]

The same way as people may reluctantly include outsiders into the so called "Lord's Recovery". It is beyond annoying how Lee cherry picked which aspects of church history were surely "in the Lords Move" naturally culminating with Nee and Lee and the local churches.

I remember one of the blendeds drawing this out on a map of the world as he recited the LC version of church history. He went on and was about to concluded and suddenly clamoring was heard from the crowd.

"You forgot Australia!"

"What?"

"What about the saints in Australia?"

Turns to map
-draws quick line from China to Australia

"Ah yes, and the Lord spread to Australia and New Zealand too"

The end

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

The same way as people may reluctantly include outsiders into the so called "Lord's Recovery". It is beyond annoying how Lee cherry picked which aspects of church history were surely "in the Lords Move" naturally culminating with Nee and Lee and the local churches.

I remember one of the blendeds drawing this out on a map of the world as he recited the LC version of church history. He went on and was about to concluded and suddenly clamoring was heard from the crowd.

"You forgot Australia!"

"What?"

"What about the saints in Australia?"

Turns to map
-draws quick line from China to Australia

"Ah yes, and the Lord spread to Australia and New Zealand too"

The end

It's ironic how everything the LC considers to be the "Lord's move" in the 20th century centered around what WN and WL were doing. For example, they might say that the Lord moved to Taiwan in 1949, and then moved to the US in the early 60's. The funny thing is that 1949 is when Lee moved to Taiwan and the early 60's when he moved to the U.S. So the "Lord's move" is equated with whatever Lee was doing. So if someone mentions Australia, or any other place Lee wasn't involved with, well there might be blank stares. Never would they admit that anything else going on outside the LC sect could be part of the "Lord's move" as well.