Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
I stop at the LC because this forum seems to have covered it pretty well.
Regardless of the condition of the LC and Lee we can assess his statement "Christianity is poor" based on the facts of specific instances alone, as Drake and I have presented.
All we need is a hypothesis and evidence. I consider this to be a rational approach not influenced by subjective opinions of whether he or she was right or wrong.
For example, if Lee was a sinner then his sin does not negate the facts that the Anglican church allowed gay marriage in its ranks. Jesus will not conduct a relative test of merit and compare everyone to Lee, but rather an absolute test against His standard.
I believe that Drake and I or anyone can accumulate enough specific evidence that supports the hypothesis that Christianity is poor and confirm Lee's opinion.
|
I understand what you are saying that Lee's own condition or the local churches own condition does not have a bearing on the condition of Christianity. And if you put blinders on and restrict the parameters of the test of poorness to only that of Christianity (generally defined as non-LC gatherings of believers), I would also agree that Lee’s opinion can be confirmed.
The problem is that in the testing of Lee's opinion, it is impossible to put those blinders on in the context of Lee's speaking of his opinion. When Lee speaks of poor Christianity, the inextricable implication is that Lee’s speaking is rich and Christianity’s is not. Lee rarely puts such blinders on and states the poorness of the condition of Christianity as a standalone (or absolute) statement; it is most always in comparison to and in contrast with HIS speaking/ministry/gatherings (i.e. a relative test of merit and comparison as you described above). In pointing out poor Christianity, he is simultaneously pointing out how rich his is. Therefore, we cannot ask nor answer if half of a complete thought is correct, only if the whole thought is correct.
This is why we point to the LC when you point to Lee’s assessment of Christianity, because Lee’s opinion itself so often includes finger-pointing to both.
Example:
“While ministering in a certain place, a young man studying at a seminary came to speak to me. He asked if I believed in the Triune God. I told him that I believed more than he. Then he asked if I believed in the rapture. I asked what kind of rapture he was talking about. There is the pretribulation, posttribulation, and midtribulation rapture. Poor Christianity! There is no ministry of Christ as the rich gold. They only have the dead teachings and doctrines.” (Lee,
The Wonderful Christ in the Canon of the New Testament)
Another example:
“Poor Christianity never could understand the book of Revelation, but it is so clear in the Lord's recovery.” (Lee,
The Wonderful Christ in the Canon of the New Testament)
In addition, agreeing with you that there is truth to the poor Christianity statement does not automatically imply agreement with the REST of the sweeping assertions that Lee couched those statements in. To say Christianity “only [has] the dead teachings and doctrines” is absurd. If we admit there are genuine, born again believers in Christianity, how can that be so if all they hear are dead teachings? Christ must be there for someone to be saved.
It is possible to condemn one thing without lifting up another, but Lee does not do that. Therefore, it is difficult to be able to say without a qualifier that Lee was correct, when his correct statements were usually decorated with peripheral statements that were NOT correct.