Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

Cal · 12-05-2011, 07:14 AM

There are a lot of good points here about the misaimings Lee made and I appreciate all of them, but I hope this thread does not lose sight of its central questions which was essentially:

Given the errors in Lee's theology, can something of it be salvaged which can be of benefit of the Church without the errors posing so much danger that attempting to salvage it would be counter-productive?

Cassidy would likely have people believe that Lee's stuff contained no appreciable errors. However, he then needs to produce a plausible reason why Lee has been so ignored and rejected by the vast majority of Christian teachers. The answer that they have hard hearts and Lee was over their heads is just not good enough.

OBW, TJ and others take the other side of that argument. They (we) need to explain why some believe in Lee so much.

But although I realize that what's good and what's bad is part of the discussion, my overall question is broader.

What is future of Lee's ministry?

Honestly, there are a few things Lee taught that I still cling to. One is calling on the Lord's name. I appreciate the simple idea of walking in the Spirit. I appreciate the idea of the generality of the Church.

Oddly, Lee seems best when his basic early ideas are taken in a general way. Being intimate with Lord, loving his word, walking in the Spirit, loving the brothers, honoring unity, building each other up, being an individual witness and a corporate testimony, being absolute, and so forth.

Sadly, all this began to take a back seat to Lee's desire to be different and special (because you know MOTA's need to be inovative) and all the convoluted fun house mirror inner-life teachings that came from that: mingling, becoming God, The Recovery, the MOTA, blending, dispensing, etc.

Cassidy can defend these fun house mirror teachings all he wants and he does a good job. But like I said he's very much like someone insisting a joke is funny and having to explain why it's funny. He might seem to win his case, but it's done in such a way that nobody ends up laughing anyway. So what's the point?

12-05-2011, 07:14 AM	#130
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Good Lee/Bad Lee: Can they be separated? There are a lot of good points here about the misaimings Lee made and I appreciate all of them, but I hope this thread does not lose sight of its central questions which was essentially: Given the errors in Lee's theology, can something of it be salvaged which can be of benefit of the Church without the errors posing so much danger that attempting to salvage it would be counter-productive? Cassidy would likely have people believe that Lee's stuff contained no appreciable errors. However, he then needs to produce a plausible reason why Lee has been so ignored and rejected by the vast majority of Christian teachers. The answer that they have hard hearts and Lee was over their heads is just not good enough. OBW, TJ and others take the other side of that argument. They (we) need to explain why some believe in Lee so much. But although I realize that what's good and what's bad is part of the discussion, my overall question is broader. What is future of Lee's ministry? Honestly, there are a few things Lee taught that I still cling to. One is calling on the Lord's name. I appreciate the simple idea of walking in the Spirit. I appreciate the idea of the generality of the Church. Oddly, Lee seems best when his basic early ideas are taken in a general way. Being intimate with Lord, loving his word, walking in the Spirit, loving the brothers, honoring unity, building each other up, being an individual witness and a corporate testimony, being absolute, and so forth. Sadly, all this began to take a back seat to Lee's desire to be different and special (because you know MOTA's need to be inovative) and all the convoluted fun house mirror inner-life teachings that came from that: mingling, becoming God, The Recovery, the MOTA, blending, dispensing, etc. Cassidy can defend these fun house mirror teachings all he wants and he does a good job. But like I said he's very much like someone insisting a joke is funny and having to explain why it's funny. He might seem to win his case, but it's done in such a way that nobody ends up laughing anyway. So what's the point?