Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
The books of "later-Lee" definitely contradicted those of "early-Lee." Some posters feel that "later-Lee" was the "real-Lee," and they are probably correct. Irregardless, the condition of those early LC's is basically unrecognizable from what you see today.
|
I have read something about "early-Lee" and "later-Lee", but there was no detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
My impression is that other than an occasional turn aside to someone with a sort of smile when walking through the crowd, he was aloof relative to everyone but his closest circle. And from what they now tell, it was really no different with them. He, like his predecessor Nee, was a loner. He was all-inclusive as to his source and ministry. He never even considered that anything he taught or said was anything but the gospel truth. God's word for the day.
The only thing he displayed that we took to be of the spirit was all of this "wealth" of teaching. We were sure that that much "good stuff" could only come from the spirit. . . . And we were right. From whatever it is that Lee called his spirit came all this stuff. In hindsight, not much Spirit in so much of it. Just different.
Sometimes I think that some of those lines in movies, like "it depends on your point of view" (when Obi Wan was talking to Luke about Vader) are very meaningful. Our perspective in the early days has colored our ability to be objective about it. Because we had a different sense about it then, our sense must be valid. We didn't like the old ways of Christianity, so a new way was better and "of the Spirit." Whether it was actually any more of the Spirit than what we left. But it was our perspective. If we refuse to take a different perspective, we may fail to discover that we have been standing three inches from the left hind leg of an elephant trying to describe the whole of the animal. It was surely different than the trunk. But it was still elephant. But what if we were now standing three inches from the trunk of a dead tree but thought it was still an elephant?
No, the metaphor does not prove anything about the content. But it may shed light on the condition of things as we observe that content. Are we sure that our perspective is clear? That we have honestly reassessed the perspective with which we made our original assessment?
I honestly think that the LRC could go through crazy phase after crazy phase because too much of our feeling was euphoria and not the Spirit. We mistook good feelings for God. We thought that it meant blessing. Instead, we were blessing ourselves with endorphins. And calling them God.
Not saying that everything we were taught was bogus, error, heretical, etc. But we were blind to any of that because our focus may have been called God, but it was too often a feeling. And we still look back in awe at the times because we felt so good then.
|
Thanks for such a thoughtful and interesting observation!
WL really looks like a loner who struggles to do his best to prove his theories. I loved some points in his books but generally, I find them boring. My wife and I still read "The Holy Word for Morning Revival" but most of the messages are tedious. Well, I do not ask for some "feel-good" stuff, but I don't find any valuable content in that mishmash. It's a mechanical structure, full of words, nothing much of Spirit. I always wonder how saints stand up and prophesy. The messages are hardly related to me. (They were related years ago, but not anymore). It's almost as spiritual as a phone book.