Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
And since 1 Cor 12 is brought up, why do we feel that Paul's discussion starting at verse 12 using the analogy of a body is intended to mean something literal about a body? The description is about how we interact like different parts of a body. How we perform different functions. How everyone is not the same. It is not a discussion about how we are part of Christ and therefor present in the Trinity.
|
This is the fruit of the whole "Recovery" mindset, that is their central hermeneutic regarding the existence of major hidden truths in the Word which are more important than what the Word plainly teaches. Lee's focus on finding meaning where meaning wasn't apparent led to most of the defining doctrines of the LRC movement being ideas that the Bible does not plainly teach. E.g.:
- Recovery
- Only one church per city
- Son being Father, Son being Holy Spirit
- Economy being dispensing
- Mingling
- Becoming God
- Minister of the age
All these things are not plainly taught in the Bible. But they are major pillars of the LRC. Lee's focus on being different and being independent led to this.
The Body becoming part of God is just another example of the kind of fringe teachings produced when one looks for hidden messages in the Bible and doesn't regard the counsel of others.
Amazingly, at the same time, Lee and the LRC ignored or marginalized plain biblical teaching. E.g.:
- Loving God and people as the primary commandments.
- Ministering to the less fortunate.
- Leadership as an act of service.
- Not lording over the members.
- Not thinking of oneself more highly than one ought to.
- Not being of a particular minister.
- Submitting to one another (including to those who don't meet with you).
The last one is telling. Had Lee submitted to the Body, meaning the whole Body, he might have been balanced by it. But he took the path that he was his own best counsel and the rest of the Church had nothing to offer. The result is fringe ideas which will probably never become mainstream.
This phenomenon of a single leader thinking he or she had the inside track on the truth has happened again and again in history, both in Christian and non-Christian movements. It happened with Lee. It happened Herbert Armstrong. Also with William Miller, F.E. Raven, Mary Baker Eddy, Ayn Rand, Elizabeth Prophet, and many others. The result is always the same. The leader is elevated to the status of a special prophet far and above others by a small and highly devoted but highly myopic group of followers.
The single most important factor in creating these imbalanced, fringe movements is that the founder or leader claims to be a special vessel of revelation and leadership. Lee did this as well. It was one of his biggest errors, and he erred in such spectacular fashion that he basically sealed his fate as being at best considered a devoted but highly eccentric fringe religious leader.
For for all Lee's talk about blending, he never blended with any teacher after Nee left the picture. He only blended with himself. The results speak for themselves. He became quite imbalanced and produced a cult-like exclusive following. Just like every other mistaken teacher in history who has claimed to have the inside track on the truth.