Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
But the response here has been to refer to some of what we got from Lee as "legitimate and powerful spiritual aspect to his ministry" and "genuine insights into the Bible and the Christian walk." My question is whether the things that you would now say are truly those things, are they what Lee was teaching, or alternatives that came about because something/someone got you to look at the whole thing from a different perspective?
|
God is God and the Spirit is the Spirit. I get the Spirit from Charles Stanley, and I get Him from Joyce Meyer. Yet they say things very differently and have different emphases.
Some of the things Lee taught I still believe, some I don't. And some things that he said which I still believe I think he put in a way that made some very profound things very accessible. Here's one example:
The Church is God's dwelling place, the place he wants to live. Most Christians know that the Church is "the house of God." But they still consider heaven as God's prime dwelling place. Lee opened my eyes to see that God's desire is to make the hearts of people his primary dwelling place. Emanuel doesn't just mean God is with us--it means God lives with us.
Now, you might argue that I could have gotten that somewhere else. But the fact is, I didn't. And I really haven't heard it emphasized anywhere else, anyway.
Each teacher has his or her area of emphasis. When I read Charles Stanley, I begin to think "this is the most important stuff." But that's simply the effect of the quality of his ministry and the passion he puts into it--
and the fact that each one of us has a unique expression. The same with Joyce Meyer. I read her and I think "this is what I need!"
Lee was the same way. When you read some of his stuff, you think. "Wow! This is good! Where has this been all my life?"
But some of it wasn't good. We need to balance the teachings we read and weigh them and as you said come up with the best alternatives. If all I read was Joyce Meyer I'd be very imbalanced. The mistake of LRCers is not that they read Lee, it's that he's pretty much all they read, and when he conflicts with anyone, they automatically side with him.
Could the Church have gotten along fine without Lee? We have to say, yes. But from that perspective it could have gotten along fine without you, or me. How does that make you feel? Yet, God saw fit to put us here. So why did he bother if we're just expendable?
My point is be careful with your broad dismissals of people. How would you like it if someone came here and said, "Everything Mike posts you could have gotten somewhere else. He has nothing new to offer." That's not only an insult to you, it's an insult to your Father.