Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
The word "con man" refers to someone who uses a "confidence trick". It is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence. This is done by exploiting characteristics of the human psyche (I referred to greed or arrogance, but there are other possibilities).
|
That is why I mentioned a "narrow definition" of con man. In the most literal sense, you are correct. But, as you now acknowledge, it is frailties of the human psyche that are targeted, not simply greed or arrogance. By listing only those two, among many, you make the implication that "we" were simply asking for it. As if getting tricked is always the responsibility of the one being tricked. Might as well blame the woman for getting . . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
I could never agree with either of these conclusions.
1. Witness Lee absolutely, definitely, and genuinely was a beloved brother in Christ.
2. Most of the saints, especially in those early days, were attracted to the Recovery because of Christ as the Spirit infilling them through the word of God ministered in the LC's.
|
I mostly agree with your first assessment. Lee was a brother. And as any brother should be beloved, he qualifies. But he also stands from day one in the US as something of a mixture. One that we had no basis to see or know about. Our first real hint at it was Daystar. Then it just kept rolling out in stages. (If there was anything modal in the LRC, it was the revelation of Lee, not of God.)
But your second statement concerns an area that is nothing if not cloudy. I sort of want to make a Yoda-like statement about being full of emotion, pain, uncertainty. The environment was "charged" in the early days. Was that clearly God, or emotions due to a sense of exhilaration from our direct participation in the meetings? Did Lee do anything truly spiritual that caused it, or just provide the venue for us to do as we would? Were the things he "gave" us that seemed to add to it truly spiritual or just adding to that emotional state?
I cannot make a clear analysis of it all. I'm sure that there was some truth mixed in there, along with emotion. And those "we got the right stuff" teachings surely puffed-up our emotions. Surely a mixed bag.
I would suggest that the best that the LRC ever had to offer that provided any spiritual benefit was its members, not really its teachings. It was the infilling of the Spirit in a collection of what would otherwise have been the pillars in other churches.
Then, as the emotional mix went higher, it also attracted more through the emotional lift it provided. I'm sure that you saw the collection of borderline unstable ones who came along, attracted by the environment.
I do not say that God was not among us. He is always among those who meet in his name. But not everything that we attribute to God was necessarily His doing.
And in these kinds of discussions, you step into a minefield because it is difficult to accept that things with the mantle of scripture and truth may not always be true. For example, calling on the Lord is a good thing. Even sometimes in the way of the LRC teachings. But when it becomes a kind of formula for improving your feelings, what is that? And improving feelings is not the stated goal of calling on the Lord. It is, or should be, contacting God. It is not about feelings. They may or may not change. But God is contacted. Yet if the goal is the feelings, then you have to question whether you have actually contacted God or just used a mantra to alter your perception of an unchanged reality. We did not start out in that way, but it seems clear that such things as a directive to call on the Lord jointly, three times, from the toes does nothing but chase away the lingering doubts that things like a kangaroo court in Whistler is not a spiritual activity. Did they really contact God? They said the words. Their feelings surely improved. That has to be from God, right?