[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since the word itself implies "ruling the people," that interpretation should more be in line with the rest of the Bible. Of course, some still point to some guy named Nicolas, and we don't know what his "deeds" were.

Or it means conqueror "for" the people. Possibly another of those "presume the one of two or more readings because it supports a position you hold" kind of things that Lee did all the time.

Nicolaitan = clergy/laity is a minority position held mostly by leaders of exclusivist sects like the LRC. I don't say this because I don't like Lee. I did one of those searches that Lee challenged but no one probably ever did and found that virtually all of the mainstream sources refer to some evidence of a subset of people involved in some kind of pagan practice mixed in with their Christian worship. While one or two supporting the clergy/laity reading were more reputable sources, the vast majority were leaders of groups I had never heard of. Several had web sites that reeked of exclusivism, "the rest of Christianity is demonic" kind of rhetoric, "we are the remnant," etc. Not what I consider reliable sources.

And rayolitta: I didn't just jump onto something not defended. I jumped onto something that was stated in a manner as if it was simply so. No consideration that there might be error in it. When taken in the light of whether we should or should not simply reject Lee (as a false prophet, according to someone else), then

And the whole Nicolaitan system should refer to "lording it over the saints" rather than just having a title of Pastor or Elder.

should set off warning bells in the minds of everyone, including the one who said it. That thinking came from Lee.

The only way we had ever heard of the Nicolaitans was from Lee. I can almost be safe to bet that none of us had heard of it before him. So our first hearing was from the false prophet. He might have been right on this one. Or was it that when we first heard of it, we liked someone calling those clergy cursed by the letters to the churches in Revelation? Did Lee tickle our ears on a subject we had never before considered? Or on one that we had personal reason to think there was a problem with?

Or do we just want to keep believing everything Lee taught and only be involved in groups that bring back those feelings and emotions from our early days in the LRC, yet reject only the person of Lee. There is a reason to reject certain teachers. And it isn't just because their personal life is a mess. It is because that is an indicator that there is reason to distrust their teaching.

And everyone of you are knee-jerking to just keep Lee's teaching on this. You almost refuse to consider that he might be wrong. We've collectively sent the former shepherd off in handcuffs, yet we are now following the paddy wagon as if there is nowhere else to get good pasture.

Rant at me if you will. But at least let this sink in over time. The other voice suggesting that Lee was a false prophet did it in an almost LRC-kind of spiritual voice. And several thought it was worthy of consideration. I say it directly with sound reasoning and it is rejected because . . . well, because why? Because I don't sound spiritual enough as I do it? Sort of like Lee?

Sheep without a shepherd comes to mind. Coupled with demons returning to an empty, clean house. You cast out Lee but can't accept that you need to fill the void with something different. So he effectively comes right back in. Point-by-point. We simply start with the presumption that whatever he taught was good even though he shouldn't have been allowed to open his mouth to teach.

I probably should just leave. But I have hope that despite my obviously abrasive manner that something will sink in eventually. A different kind of planting and watering. I can't make it grow. But should I just abandon it all?

I bet a bunch of you are saying "yes" right about now. And there is a side of me that is ready to leave you wandering in your wilderness panting for the leeks and garlic of Lee. And maybe I should. It surely is doing nothing for me. I'm not trying to win friends. And if I am, I am doing a terrible job of it.

Much of the double-speak on this forum is the claim of leaving the LRC when the only thing abandoned are the meetings. Too many just go outside the door and long to go back inside. Back to the exclusivist teachings that made you feel so good. So superior. I'm not sure many of us really have any idea of what the leading of the Spirit is. (Not saying I do either.) We just know the path carved out by Lee. We do just like the Concerned Brothers and argue for a better reading of Lee. But do we really think that Lee was wrong? Or just a bad business-man and father. And it is all irrelevant to his teaching?

Paul would disagree. So should we.

I would like to believe that these harsh words will get past the veneers and cause us to think. But I have probably just made it so that nothing I say will be truly read. Take note of how many older people had any significant theological training prior to joining the LRC. Or rather how few there are. Most started off within their college years, so even if that was a bible college, or even a seminary, they were still formulating. They were still susceptible to Lee.

Seek out the comforting words and reject the harsh ones. Don't even consider that they might be right. I may be proving that I don't have the gift of exhortation. But no one seems to be doing it here. It is a desert in that regard.