Thanks for the quote, aron. But when I read it, I saw something a little different than what it seems others have.
Quote:
|
"When I was told that I had deviated from the recovery, I checked with myself. Where? Where could I find my deviation? I couldn’t find [anything]. So I could not have anything to repent of. I’m not proud. I’m sincere. I’m honest. I’m open. To tell you the truth, I like to repent. I have repented to the saints openly at least two or three times. Right? I didn’t deviate from the recovery; rather I got into it more deeply. Right?"
|
Since Lee is the source of the teaching on recovery, he is the source of all data concerning it. Even if he were to claim to have discovered it within scripture, it is still the result of his own analysis of that scripture.
Then, if the definition of recovery is dependent upon his analysis of scripture, it would tend to follow that he would naturally find that he followed his own thinking on the subject. The analysis then becomes a classic begging of the question. Or maybe more correctly a classic case of circular reasoning.
You ask the one who defined something based on his own analysis whether he is still holding to his analysis. It will not matter whether his definition has morphed over time and you think you see that current actions are contrary to older definitions. Such a person will declare that the definition is what it currently is and that he must (by definition) be consistent with it.
And that is the way with virtually everything that is learned by reference to Lee. "Brother Lee once said that . . ." is all that is required to make something "true." It is what he says, so it is true.
And if you think he is not acting consistent with his statements, then you don't understand the statements. The fault is never with Lee.