Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Well, I don't think he was basically right. When he called Protestant churches "Christ-less" and other churches "lifeless," he was basically wrong. Christ-less means NO Christ. Lifeless means NO life. That was flat wrong and intentionally misleading. Lee exaggerated the shortcomings of other churches and whitewashed his own. He was completely biased and unfair.
|
It's like family members who tell me, "I get life when I read the ministry." Oh really? What they are not saying is implied -- I get no life when I read elsewhere. But is it true? It's all subjective, so who can say otherwise? When I read the ministry I get troubled. So who is right, and who is not?
Lee allowed no tolerance for other's ministry. Paul said, "
Let your tolerance be known to all, the Lord is near." (Phil 4.5) With the LC then, we must consider the contrapositive of this verse -- if there is no tolerance for others, does that mean the Lord is not there at all?
W. Lee regularly loved to compare the best of the Recovery with the worst of Christianity, especially in the big trainings. All of us would then smile, firmly convinced that the Recovery was all good, and Christianity was all bad, based on his simple comparison. But can we not use the same standards on His ministry? Why can't I compare the dear saints I know in "Christianity" with Lee's Manager at LSM, namely his own son Philip? Using Lee's own practice, what's wrong with characterizing the entire Recovery using Philip, his profligate son?