[OBW]

Ohio,

I came to the forum this morning after 3 days out of town with no connections. And my typical markers to what had not been read were not accurate, so I had to fish back and try to remember what I last read.

And in this thread I started shortly before your post concerning what Lee taught on several verses, mostly in Revelation, on which he was correct. But showing that Lee did teach some correct things does not answer the question as to whether it is reasonable or wise to hold on to Lee's teachings.

So that is what I responded to. In your case, to simply say Lee taught only junk would be ridiculous. That would leave you with no firm foundation.

As for the comments about people throwing out Christ along with Lee, that is a different problem. But even there, you can't just link the two. It must be differentiated.

My decision to intentionally dismiss what I recall as coming from Lee was not to dump truth and have nothing, but to take the position that what I sense being of Lee/LRC origins (and Nee for that matter) would be intentionally open for debate/discussion. Even if I did not know how to go about it, I would start with the idea that if I was not also finding it in front-and-center, mainstream Christian teaching it would be suspect. I would not speak it as if simply true. Instead, I would intentionally read the relevant passages and alternate sources of commentary with an intent to let it speak as if in a vacuum rather than in need of supporting or opposing Lee.

And, of course, a lot of the Lee differentiators were terminology used just to stir things up. I now find that saying "communion," "Sunday," "recite," "tradition," "religion," etc., without immediately being accosted by Lee's narrow or alternate definitions in my mind is very liberating. I can have "true religion" and can practice according to a "tradition" without looking around to see if some LRC acquaintance is in the vicinity. If there is a problem with any of those words, it is in their court, not mine.

I will not speak as if there is some "ground of oneness" that we have to look for. Or flinch at the idea of being a member of an assembly that is part of a denomination. While there may be a general problem with the top leaders of the various denominations not being more open to discuss their positions in that manner, it is nowhere near as bad as with the leadership of the LRC. (And I pick on the leadership because if we think that we are each individually responsible for doctrine, then there will never be any kind of oneness.) With a few exceptions, the leadership of "poor pathetic Christianity" is more inclined toward oneness than the LRC is within its own denomination.

And for most of us, being the building, and the farm, is much easier (and biblical) than all being the workers. We have some basis for stability. Even if we are included at some level in the discussion of doctrine and teaching, the fact that some are commissioned to study and preach the Word for our benefit is a help to us all. The alternate is a mess in which we all think entirely whatever we want and there is strife at more levels than Paul found in Corinth.

In effect, "let's just all be equal brothers/sisters" is not entirely scriptural. There are to be teachers. Jesus sent out the disciples to preach and teach. He didn't just send them because all the others were fallen and reprobate. He did it because those are the ones he trained and commissioned. It does not excuse us from the exercise of our gift. But everyone is not a teacher, or prophet, or evangelist, or even shepherd. Yet we can all shepherd to some extent. And we do speak. But it is not what Paul was talking about. There are workers, but there is a farm. And for most of us, we are the farm. Our primary task is learning and obeying. Not leadership, but God. And yet to some extent we don't know God without leadership. We just become disgruntled if we think it is all about us and there are no leaders. There are some of those around here at times.