Both books cover the topic of discipleship, spiritual growth. Both use the foundation of our dependence on Christ, the gospel, of a settled position in relationship to God. Both move on to walking in holiness, worthiness – putting off the old and putting on the new man. Both end dealing with prayer, hardship, and spiritual battle and our response as believers. Both are deeply entrenched in the text of Ephesians.
But if I was asked to choose between them (in a sense, I am, based on things we are working on at church, and my efforts here on my blog), there is no doubt I would choose Sit, Walk, Stand. It is clearer, for one. It is more heart-felt, in my opinion. One way I sense that is it comes from the mind of the author, without the need of augmentation. The Discipline of Grace was littered with quotations from every Puritan author Bridges could find, and then some, making it choppy, dusty and difficult to grab on to. And it is not because of an antiquated feel either. The English language used in my text for Sit, Walk, Stand was decent, but certainly a little out-of-date. Both made frequent use of things like “ye” and “brethren” which are sure to be off-putting to some.
I think Nee’s focus on a progression within one Biblical book was a good decision. It made for a clear outline, while Bridges’ book is jumpy. It covers many different parables, many different teaching passages, many different letters, and in the end just lacked cohesion.
Well, that’s what I had to say about that. Choose the book that is 60 some pages rather than the 250 page book that says something similar in a less compelling fashion.