Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
What's all this talk of leaving?...
|
You are probably at least a little correct that you need some balance. But several others do a pretty good job of keeping you in check.
My problem is that we have finally come to a point where there is a discussion about whether to just dump Lee and rethink it all, or just face the Lee issues as they arise, followed by what would appear to be a lot of push-back whenever something that is almost completely Leeville teaching is questioned. No discussion. Just complain that it was questioned.
And no one really seems interested in dissecting the teachings. They just fall right back in line with Lee. They like them.
The love "all can prophesy." No contrary reading is really considered.
They love Nicolaitan = clergy/laity.
They love just abide. Don't obey. (not usually said quite that strongly.)
They love the way the meetings are held and refrain from joining mainstream Christianity because it is just too different. (Not all, but a lot.)
Some presume that every practical error in the LRC is proof that the LRC didn't go far enough. They want no elders.
They want to rely on the inner sense and not care for the fact that it is fickle and can easily take us to places contrary to scripture. (And I do not hold scripture in a true "inerrant" standing. I just believe that to the extent that it has spoken, things that are contrary cannot be made correct by waving the wand of the "leading of the Spirit" or some artificial overlay like "dispensing.")
They want Christ but don't want his people. (That one is pointed at those who just meet infrequently with only a few similar minds. There is a purpose in assembling together. I realize that "where 2 or 3" does give a little comfort for the really small group. But I have a general sense (there I go violating my own rule) that it is inadequate for real assembling.)
They are clear that Lee incorrectly lambasted Christianity, but will have nothing to do with it.
My purpose is for escape and healing for those caught in the LRC's system of error, and for moving forward for those that do escape. There seems to be little heart to talk as if anything other than a Reformed LRC is an acceptable place to move to. And there
are several who have testified to their more serious moving on. Yet even some of those come here talking doctrines in a manner that places them right back at the door of the LRC. Talking about their current assembly as if it is tolerated as a second choice to a Reformed LRC.
None of this is for the purpose of belittling or slandering anyone. Yet some are looking at every disagreement as a personal challenge while they constantly disagree with others. They take every point as a personal jab. They do not accept that discussion of positions is not a discussion of the person who holds the position. And my comments about the way some have responded is not for the purpose of attacking their character or person, but to show that positions are too often held too dearly. Too closely. We tend to think that the position is us, so someone disagreeing on the position is attacking me personally.
And despite my interest in this forum (and its counterpart) I also find myself too drained from spending so much time dealing with people who assume that I am accusing them of something just because I disagree. Or start griping because I point at a potential error in teaching/position. Like Nicolaitan just may not have anything to do with clergy/laity. And several people immediately desire to shut that kind of talk down. They don't want to consider it. So either I'm obligated by some unwritten code to just let it go, or I speak up.
Or I get frustrated with the double-speak and take some time off. As usual, it will probably be only for a while. But I recently stopped looking at facebook. It's been at least a couple of weeks. And that little farm that I was tending to for a while died a couple of months ago. I suddenly realized it was probably dead and didn't even care to go look. Might get the same way about this forum. It really isn't interested in the kind of deep analysis that is somewhat regenerative to my somewhat (overly??) analytical mind. I seldom wear down from it, but recuperate because of it. But it isn't happening. We would rather rank the LSM/nonLSM status of some particular assembly. Or listen to the same old conversation between Lee and Sal and second-guess what what said in certain places and what was meant by certain things, like a chuckle.
Or try to figure out where Daystar's money really went. We can guess. We can assert. But don't really know and can't really know. But it occupies most of the time when Daystar is brought up. The analysis of whether the existence of Daystar and its SEC-violating sales of investments suggest that Paul would simply muzzle Lee is not hardly mentioned. That is more important that the money trail. That is the thing that would have eliminated Lee from the whole process long before Memorial Day, 1977, or the New Way, or the expulsion of John I, John So, Bill Mallons, etc., or the fabrication of lies by the so-called oracle of God to hide the truth about those expulsions.