Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Then you must take into account the context of Romans 14. By attacking RG's supposed motives in writing a book, you have "elevated" his motive to those of eating veggies and celebrating Christmas. You have become as narrow and as judgmental as the ones you judge.
|
I'm not the only person providing a motive for Ray. But simply because there is a motive does not make it on par with Paul's discussion in Romans 14. If that were the case, then how could he ever make a comment about anyone because they teach certain ways to be enriched (fill their bellies is the way I think he said it). And you could never "refuse" anyone due to anything other than the actual errors in teaching. Paul said to look at the person of a teacher. And the writer of a book is effectively a teacher. If there were no context concerning the lawsuits, we could rightly say that the book was good without any qualifier. But even though the book itself remains good, with a context of lawsuits and a practice of so-called "pray reading" that was not like what was described in the book, there is almost surely a motive. Since there was no effort to change the way we did our pray reading as a result of the book, then it is difficult to describe it as for the purpose of defending the LRC's practices.
Actually, it looks more like it was written for the purpose of defending the
term "pray reading" with little or no regard for what might be lumped into that term. It certainly did not defend the practice that I saw.
And no matter how I read it, you can't put this discussion of RG, the effects of the book, or the writing of it within the meaning of the passage in Romans 14. In that place, Paul is saying that one person is living before God according to his conscience. Another is doing the same yet is taking a different personal stance on the same issue. The master is the one who will judge them both and that is God. He will judge them according to their faithfulness to what they understand to be true.
How do you determine that writing a book about something not practiced, and not taught after the writing of the book but put on display as if a primer on the workings of what is practiced is done as a matter of conscience before God concerning an irrelevant thing? Further, when the actual practice that is already in place, and given the same name as the one in the book, is not consistent with what is described in the book, is continued without change, and is not pushed to be changed, how do you say that it is simply a matter of conscience and something that is relevant to Romans 14?
It would be a little like saying that your conscience does not allow you to partake of alcoholic beverages. But you drink beer and just
say it is not alcoholic. Not differentiate between levels of alcoholic content in your conscience, but say one thing and do another.
Besides, how does RG writing a book in any way fall under the context of Romans 14? I just don't see it. Are you saying that it is a matter of conscience that Ray wrote a book about one kind of pray reading and that is all there is to it? That this kind is essentially irrelevant to the LRC is irrelevant to the discussion? That there was a lawsuit going on in which it was asserted that the LRC practice of pray reading was a kind of mind-altering experience that helped to control the members? And while there is little in common between the LRC practice and the ones in this book, it appears in print (and not written by Lee) in the middle of those lawsuits?
The "another man's servant" line refuses to allow anyone to connect the dots? Why doesn't someone ask Don R if he knows anything about this book. He was involved in the lawsuit defense for at least a while. I remember his discussing how they would come in with their lawyers and others to the depositions and come up with just the right document over and over, and ask question after question to keep the other guys busy. I know that he has much on his mind and heart these days and we probably should not bother him. But that might be a place to discover something.