[OBW]

I was informed by our dear moderator (also referred to recently as the Topiq Natzi) that he inadvertently deleted a post of mine and could not recover it. Upon a close look, I do not have the original, but based upon his quotes from it, I can reconstruct the meat of it.

My first thought was not to bother. But upon reflection, I believe that its content was worthy of some thought. I know that having had those thoughts, I have been challenged concerning my thoughts about others, especially those who are trying to do the “right thing” even when not always succeeding or looking spiritual as they do it.

I initially keyed off of the following statement by Igzy:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee's emphasis on "life" was initially a needed pushback to religious self-effort, which if you visited evangelical churches in the mid-20th century was probably the norm.

If you read more of that post, Igsy says “Dead churches are not the problem today.” I did not quote that part originally, but what come to me was the consideration that it might just be that dead churches never were the problem.

And that is where I jumped off into my thoughts.

Is it possible that setting the mind on the Spirit and walking according to the Spirit results in people actually doing things that simply look like righteousness. And the fact that they fail at it sometime is proof that we do not always maintain the “according to” and “set” throughout our day. But the fact that they at least try is proof that they are obedient rather than rebellious.

If we are charged to be holy as Christ is holy, and to teach (or be taught) to obey all that Christ commanded, then I would suspect that there should be a lot of people actually doing a lot that could be seen as “religious effort” when viewed from Lee’s “let the dispensing do it for you” Leeology. And maybe the only people who are wrong are the ones who don’t even try. Who don’t even give it some religious effort. (I am only referring to those who are redeemed, not the heathen and the social Christian.)

Maybe all those Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Charismatics, Bible Churhers, etc., who are trying are the ones that God loves and abides with. Those who refuse to do are not obeying and are not getting that kind of abiding.

And it has always been that way. Lee fed us some kind of nonsense about “religious effort” being bad because it drove a wedge between us and them. And we never bothered to question whether or not he was right.

Then I commented a little (without quote) to this part of Ohio’s post:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The reason why some former members on this forum lean to the side of righteousness and obedience to the Lord, and the matters of "right and wrong," is that WL and company committed numerous acts of unrighteousness all the while hiding behind the banner of "we only care for life."

It is also reported that Phillip Lee, the reprobate "Office" manager at LSM during the turbulent times of the "new way," who was involved in numerous obnoxious and hideous immoralities, had the same favorite saying in times of crisis, "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life."

With such an equivocating saying such as that, just about any crime could be swept under the rug at LSM.

And he is quite correct. I also note that in his post #17 he took it further, being very direct to state that both Jesus and the Apostles spoke very differently than Lee about right and wrong. “Paul says the kingdom of God is firstly righteousness.”

Spot on.

Unless your righteousness exceed that of Lee, his son, and the BBs, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. But Lee taught us that we could be just like them all.

I’m sure that this is sufficiently different than the original post. But I think the question/suggestion that religious effort and the state of Christianity in that matter was never in error, even in the 60s, was the main thrust. Without this, the very foundational reason for the LRC, and all of those claims about Christianity’s horrible state of being, were never correct.

I might even go so far as to suggest that, even with the obvious errors we see in the RCC, it is not as all-out rotten as we were lead to believe. It sort of sticks in my craw as I say it. But I’m beginning to think that I need a new set of eyes for so much of this. There is still way too much Lee in them.