Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!
Okay and well said!
I don't think theology matters as much as a living relationship with the Lord - can't add much to that. I don't know any place in scripture that we are told, "Know accurate theology," but how many places say something about knowing the Lord? (although I guess some might say this includes accurate theology - but the word, to my knowledge, doesn't seem to emphasize knowing theology) However, if I had my druthers (interesting word . . .), I would prefer to also have accurate theology!
Was God closer to me when I thought He was 3-in-1 than when I thought He was more 1-in-3? I firmly doubt it.
In any case, I appreciate those that strive for accurate theology. I hope they also "taste and see that the Lord is good." (BTW: we enjoyed singing that old song just this morning at brothers' breakfast!)
|
SoG
I was perusing several old threads and noticed that there was some recent activity on this otherwise old thread.
I agree that theology is not our basis for salvation, knowing the Lord, oneness, etc. But when it comes to getting spiritual nourishment, not everything that sounds "spiritual" is fit for consumption. We recognize some of the New Age garbage easily since it generally falls outside of anything in the Bible. But then there are some who claim a veneer of Christianity but provide a lot of nonsense wrapped in Christiany terms. Several TV personalities and self-help gurus come to mind.
But what is worse is when someone who is allegedly staying strictly within the bounds of acceptable Christian teaching is providing garbage. It might not keep the followers from being able to claim true Christian belief. But so much of what they consume spiritually may be quite tainted.
And when that tainted "food" results in their bondage to a system that . . . .
You get the picture.
In various places, Jesus, then later Paul and others, provided markers for true spiritual leadership. Jesus contrasted the ways of the Pharisees with the servant-leaders that are to be the mark of Christian leadership. Paul provided additional markers that ranged from variations in teaching to evidence in their personal lives that such persons should be refused the opportunity to teach.
Therefore, when there begins to be a significant collection of variant teachings (especially if they stand in contrast to the very scripture from which they are presumably derived), and there is evidence of personal, financial, etc., misconduct (especially if it drags the Christian followers into the problems), and there is evidence that efforts are being made to "collect" people to themselves (such as making followers fear that leaving would be spiritually or even physically dangerous), then it is time to shine the light on such teachers. Give the followers the opportunity to see more than the one side they have been given.
There have been various positions taken here about how to deal with Lee's teachings. Some think that we can safely take it all except where we come to find error. Sort of following one of Lee's lines from way back about eating the chicken and rejecting the bones and feathers. Others (like me) go so far as to say that if you can't find it as something fairly regular inside of the rest of Christianity, you should reject it.
For me, the problem is that trying to pick out the bones means that I suddenly need to be able to see what I could not for so many years while inside that system. That is seldom what happens. They did some studies and discovered that (especially in a religious context) that if you learn something incorrectly because the context was omitted, that introducing the context (which shows the error in the prior teaching) only convinces about 50% of people. In other words, because you heard it first, you are more likely to believe it no matter how wrong it turns out to be, and how obvious the error is.
For this reason, when it comes to some of the more egregious doctrinal errors of Lee, it is important to chink away at the nonsense. To point at the lack of actual evidence over and over. People like Drake and Evangelical may be too indoctrinated to ever see the nonsense in what they say. But maybe someone else will.
And while I cannot remember enough of the words of the "taste and see" song to comment on it, I am prone to refraining from the old LC songs, especially in the supplement, since too many of them are emotional rather than substantive even when not doctrinally incorrect. The LC (and a lot of modern Christianity for that matter) are too caught up in feelings. How something moves
me. How
I feel. Unless you are in a more "traditional" service, even the songs that seem to speak of God's attributes are too often more about how I am emotionally affected by them than who and what God is. And the traditional services can sometimes fall into "by-and-by" kinds of songs that tug at heartstrings of seeing family again, or avoiding suffering.
There's going to be suffering in this world. Jesus said it would be.
But it should not come from being trapped in Lee's system of error. When you put the warnings of Jesus and Paul together, neither Nee nor Lee could be seen as viable sources for spiritual teaching. They fail on too many levels. Lack of true theological training is just one. (I like to point out that I was an accountant just like Lee.) Immorality. Making money off the flock. Teachings that do not constitute sound doctrine. And if you reject them, you should fully reject them. That is why I say that nothing should be kept that is not found somewhere else. (And just because something sort of like it is said somewhere by one person does not really qualify.)
The guys we are arguing with — Drake, Evangelical, and others, past and present — may never budge an inch. But there are many lurkers who will see and some will consider.
Or that is our hope.