Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
We may be long gone from the LRC, but do we still use it and its meetings as a yardstick for the "flow of the Spirit" without discovering whether the Spirit was, in fact, flowing in those meetings? Or have we presumed that what we called the Spirit in those days was actually the Spirit and not just our personal enjoyment of freedom from old forms?
|
OBW, this reminds me of the beginnings of a discussion we once had on "the works of the Nicolaitans". I referred to Witness Lee's teachings on the subject, and his condemnations of "Christianity" for their "clergy-laity system",
in light of their own hierarchical system which oversees the Recovery. I pointed this out, much like
zeek has just pointed out this same thing as an example of
double-speak.
You then launched into a refutation of Lee's "works of the Nicolaitans" teaching, as if I or anyone else had even been defending it. Yet all anyone had been doing (as I recall) was considering the LRC's own behavior in light of their own (strong, clear, oft-repeated) teachings.
I think that's the same thing that's happening here.
awareness,
ZNP, and I addressed the "behind-the-scenes" maneuvering that dominates some prophesying meetings,
in the name of this thing called "the flow of the Spirit".
OBW, I'm not using LRC teachings/attitudes/claims as a yardstick for the "flow of the Spirit" -- I'm using LRC teachings/attitudes/claims as a yardstick for their own goofy behavior!