[aron]

I'd like to give an example. Lee used the Bible, and was if nothing else, a very logical person. So we thought we were safe.

But my point is that his logic wasn't perfect. And the lack of balancing counsel, of any kind of peer review, removed us from safety, and Lee's lack of logic, however small, eventually deviated and grew great. If you are off target by 1/4 degree, after ten miles of journeying you are far from your intended path.

In Acts chapter 2, Peter showed the Psalmist declaring fealty to God, and God's reward. But the Psalmist failed. Yet Peter realized that the Psalmist had a revelation of God's promise, and was "looking away" unto the promised Christ. Thus the statement of a fallen, feeble human being was actually revelatory of the One who never fell, and who made it fully into glory.

Yet elsewhere when the text repeated the pattern, for example, "He rescued me because He delighted in me", Lee merely said, "No, God didn't delight in David, nor did He rescue him. David rescued himself." Now this is true at one level, but Peter didn't stay there, but went deeper. But Lee refused to go deeper.

And my point is this: 2,000+ people sitting in a convention center said nothing. The 'oneness' forced them to accept something that surely some of them must have stirred uneasily about. On this forum, a participant of the "Psalms" training testified that he and his neighbor looked at each other and made wry faces. But nobody said anything. They were stuck. The 'Bad Lee' was now in charge, and nobody could do anything.