Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
Actually this is pretty interesting. I read a bit of authority and submission when I was younger but didn't get very far into it. I just now went and read a little bit of chapter three and Nee is talking about Moses being a chosen deputy authority by God. He also mentions Noah and the sin of Ham by uncovering his father
The problems I have with these two examples is:
1. Noah's sin was a personal sin that didn't effect other people. He was simply drunken and naked, and in that sense sure Ham was wrong for exposing his father's personal sins. That is true, but with regards to the sins that Lee is accused of it doesn't fit the same category. If Lee was covering his son and not removing his son from office while his son was breaking the law and harming women then Lee was beyond wrong. That type of thing simply can't exist in the church and be covered like it was. Totally unacceptable and that type of thing SHOULD be exposed so that we don't foster that type of environment. And it has happened again since Lee's son did it. Other brothers have done it and got away with it. So clearly Lee's son should have been made an example of. This shows how damaging the misuse of scripture can be
With regards to Moses, the whole thing just sounds like a soap opera. Moses's sister and brother were all mad because he married an Ethiopian woman or whatever, is just a silly thing. And then God coming around and giving them leprosy or whatever is kind of unnecessary for such silly drama. I'll have to go back and read more of that but it just sounds like a soap opera. There's many examples in the Old Testament of God being petty and cruel. The example of the bears coming out and devouring the children who were mocking Elisha is a shining example of misuse of power and God being petty. But anyway
2. I can't go along with someone holding a position over a large group of people while harming a large number of them at the same time. Maybe I'm just "natural" or maybe I'm a rebel, but it seems to me that one should lose their position of leadership if they make grave errors and sins. Saul lost his position due to his sins. So why didn't David? It's God playing favorites I suppose. So this type of wonky scripture could absolutely be exploited by leaders who want to cover up their misdeeds or leaders who are corrupted by their own position
|
I don't say any of this to say that I believe Lee was a false prophet or a cult leader etc. I don't believe he was. I do believe he was used by God to set up the local churches and to speak a lot of great things with regards to the deeper meanings in the Bible. However it sounds like his personal life had a lot of major drama in it and that carried over into the church when he appointed his unworthy sons with high positions, of which they misused and abused. This was no doubt nepotism on Lee's part, and it sounds like this was his major flaw- his love for his sons. So despite the great things Lee did he also did a lot of damage and probably should have lost his position. But then we get into another argument of what exactly should the positions in the church be, and how should they be maintained and how should they function. This is something that is not talked a lot about in the recovery. But I think it's safe to say that if you have a position it should not be permanent and if you behave badly you could and probably should lose your position. Are positions hierarchy? Such a grey area right. I have also heard of elders being asked to step down. So why was Lee never asked to step down. Probably because they revered him to almost a deity status. They felt he was the "speaker of the age" just like Paul and this gave him a 'get out of jail free' card for any misdeeds or errors. Which he clearly made huge ones and they were just covered up because of this prevailing thought that the lower ranking members shouldn't expose the wrongs of the higher ranking members. Well this led to many lives being ruined and many thousands of people leaving the recovery