[OBW]

Now, having said what I have concerning the meaning of the verses in Proverbs (which I am not certain is entirely correct) I do see something emerging from those verses that might not have been intended.

And it relates to how we speak concerning Lee, the BBs, the teachings of the LRC and the high-handedness of everything LSM.

We rightly accuse Lee of simply lashing out at everything that does not fall in line with his teachings. And there are clearly errors in his teachings, and serious problems in the unrighteous way the Lee acted and the BBs and LSM continue to act.

But do we too often simply gnash our teeth back at them in similar fashion? And do we over-correct when we realize that others are doing that, almost falling all over ourselves to be nice?

The answer, I believe, is in more rational discourse about any issue, whether theological or practical. Don't just say something is so. Take time to establish that it is so. Don't just say it isn't so. Show how it is not so.

I am probably as bad about this in some ways as anyone else. When I said that Lee limited the understanding of many words to only a single meaning throughout scripture, that is all I said. Ohio rightly pointed out that Lee probably spent more time doing some of the kind of open discussion of alternative meanings than most others preachers. They usually take only the time to give you the answers. Lee always took more time because for every one sermon by a preacher, Lee gave several messages in a conference. But after going through those variations, he too often settled on one definition to the exclusion of the others. In the case of "economy," it was to a very narrow, peculiar definition that he insisted was the only one. In the case of "one," he insisted that it was simply an organic union. (Interesting that those two definitions go together so well.)

But the real problem here is that we too often do just like him. We quickly conclude without real consideration and go on a rampage (answering the fool as in Proverbs 26:4). Or we reject those on the rampage and fight against their position with equal lack of consideration.

Emotional responses actually are kind of like the Dark Side. They cloud our judgment by limiting our desire to investigate, consider, contemplate.

This is a board for the discussion of Lee, Nee, and the LRC. We need to do a better job of discussing them, not merely ranting or defending with incredulity.

And I now find it interesting that someone is flooding the forum with posts yet is using a temporary moniker that will have to be changed after a short time. That smacks of motives inconsistent with the purpose of the forum. I still say that it should not be an option. Unto has more reason to question that one about motives because they have already indicated that they do not intend to be permanent — just flood us and disappear. Or return shortly with a new moniker and a new style and demeanor.

And all of the possible problems may not exist for this person. But it is strongly hinted. And some indication that it is coming true.

Unto. Time to require registration.