[OBW]

I’m quite glad to see someone taking on the misplacement of Lee’s commentary into and among scripture where only meaningful and helpful facts should be placed. As CMW and others have commented, these meaningful and helpful facts should aid us in understanding the scripture to which they are attached rather than providing meaning that would not otherwise be found within those scripture.

One of the things that is correctly mentioned is that we all need to come to scripture first and foremost. Even if something said by another sparks some response, we should take the time to review it against scripture.

And it is equally true that we need to be open to the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. But this is often where the LC went astray. While the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit is very important, providing “spiritual discernment” as Paul called it in 1 Corinthians 1, it is also something that can be misunderstood and even misrepresented. For example, to suggest that pray-reading as taught in the LC is a good source of spiritual discernment of the scripture is faulty. Pray-reading, even if at times useful, is a methodology that has at its core a sort of “clearing of the mind” through chopping verses into meaningless fragments, coupled with an emotional high, especially when practiced with a group. The result is that the participant is open to accept anything that another participant, speaker, or writer says about the verses just covered.

Even if we accept that it was never intended that what was provided as the meaning of the verses be in error, the very way that it is provided almost guarantees that it will not be questioned. Any discrepancies relative to the actual scriptures will be overlooked.

Even when we have come away from the LC and from its faulty teachings, how can we be sure that what we think is the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit is actually so? The answer is that it will always bear out the actual scriptures. While it is true that understanding of scripture requires spiritual discernment, that discernment will ultimately cause the scripture to have clear meaning that does not stand in contradiction to the actual words recorded. Even a claim of private speaking from the Holy Spirit will not contradict the scripture.

But Lee contradicted the scripture. He so often could not find his pet meanings in the scriptures, so he ignored their context and looked elsewhere, mostly to his own narrow ministry, to find meaning not otherwise included there in the scripture. He so often would come to say something like “if we have a clear view of God’s economy, then we will see that this is simply [something not actually recorded in the scripture he is covering].” For the magician, this is called misdirection. “Look over here while I do something less obvious over there.” And with a wave of the hand, results become causes.

(I so often harp on this one because it was in the misanalysis of 1 Timothy 1:3-4 that correct teachings which will result in God’s administration or “God’s economy” was turned into the teachings actually being God’s economy. This is the very opening of The Economy of God. Something that was the combined result of all of the correct and healthy teachings was twisted into being a simple thing ─ God dispensed into man ─ and was then said to be the thing to teach. But I thought that the teachings were things like love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and will, and your neighbor as yourself; like care for widows and orphans; like obey my commandments; like forgive your brother every time. None of these are “simply God dispensed into man.” It is true that God living in man, which is effectively the writing of the law on our hearts, would make doing these things much easier than when God was merely outside and the law objective. But even if we say that this is God dispensed into man, it does not negate the commandments of Christ. It does not override Jesus commandment to the disciples to teach the new converts to obey all that He had commanded.)

This is why I think that Lee's commentaries placed in with scripture as footnotes for a study bible is so insidious. Those notes do not help the reader study the scripture that is actually there. They direct the reader to understand something that is not in scripture. They become replacements for the clear words in scripture when that scripture does not fall in line with Lee's pet doctrines. The goal, even if not malicious, is to direct the reader to understand scripture in a way that is not consistent with the actual words recorded. As such, they are not properly included as footnotes in a study bible.

And if there are study bibles that others have done that similarly include their opinions concerning the meaning of scripture, even if their conclusions are reasonable, they should not be included as footnotes in a study bible.