Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Not so. Under the "Reconsideration" link, Nigel Tome critiques many of Lee's teachings, and points to Lee as the source of the error, as in his critique of Lee's views on "the curse of Ham" and Satanology.  |
OK. I sit corrected. But are any of the items critiqued core to the LRC framework? Do they cause the walls of the LRC to shake? Or just point to some overreaching on a few things? If Satan is not literally in our flesh, can Lee's teachings still hold? Mostly so.
What about the "ground of the church." The whole remnant theology line of thinking (that has been cornerstone in numerous aberrations of Christianity of the centuries). God's economy is "simply" dispensing and anything that smacks of effort on our part should be stricken from scripture or labeled "the law" and declared abolished.
The list goes on.
Have they gone after what makes the LRC (with or without the LSM and the BBs) unique? What makes it reek to the outsiders? Yes, they have commented on lawsuits (and been the targets of a few of them). But do they still think that it is a solid house with some bad paint, or a house of cards that needs to be dismantled (or blown down)?
And it is interesting that, while you are correct that they have pointed at Lee a little, they have not pointed at the core of what they are/were. Myer is alone in that. He has declared the whole thing to be naked. Not just a little too much skin showing around the ankles. He was nice about it. But in his own way, that is what he has ultimately done. Even the outcasts of the GLA did not avoid his negative comments.
And negative comments are sometimes exactly what is needed. Lee, the BBs, TC, etc., have hidden behind declarations of others just being "negative," yet the lawsuits, excommunications, belittling, ordering elders around, etc., is nothing if not fully negative.