[OBW]

First. This will probably be somewhat of a “swan song” for me. I realize that my journey is taking me elsewhere. I need to get even the remnants of the LRC out of my system. I want the only remnants of the LRC to be relegated to my get togethers with my Dad, brother and sister and their families. I really think that my time here has run its course and I am clinging to it as a familiar place. But it is getting less and less familiar, so it is probably time to go.

------

For some time I have been making comments in what seem to be two different fronts. First, I have noted that we often find ourselves falling back into the familiar ways and teachings of Lee and the LRC. Second, I have been noting that the LRC is blind to its errors because it views the world through Lee-colored glasses.

As I was reading through some posts over the past week or so, both here and on the Bereans, I have begun to merge these two ideas, and further to think that they are both more pervasive among us who think we are free of the grasp of the LRC. In effect, I believe that we have all retained our Lee-colored glasses, and that we really like them.

Here’s how it goes.

For various reasons, many who joined the LRC back in the 60s and 70s were searching for something beyond the rather old mind-set of whatever it was that we were part of, be it Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, etc., and even the RCC. There had been this slowly rising tide of inner-life teachers. There were quite a lot of Americans. We didn’t need Nee or Lee to cause people to thirst for more. I know that my family had been following a couple of specific teachers, one of which was a guy that I think was named Kenneth Hagan. There were others.

At the same time, there was a new surge of charismatic-types that came along outside of the regular Pentecostal circles. Names like Katheryn Kuhlman (sp?) and others held revivals complete with that “knock you down” kind of “slaying in the spirit” thing. And coupled with that was a lot of more liturgical groups having side meetings for those in their ranks who were getting into Pentecostal/charismatic things. Anglicans, Methodists, etc. There was even a meeting every Sunday evening in the nearby RCC high school cafeteria for its charismatic adherents where the nuns and priests in attendance would talk about their “unsaved” coworkers.

I went through that to point out that there was a trend of unhappiness with the “old time religion.” Didn’t need the LRC to write a supplement song to “bury that old time religion.” It was under way.

Into this fray came Watchman Nee. He came via a few of his books. And then came Witness Lee, in person, but with much less exposure. Via a few connections with some small home groups that knew others who had small home groups, etc., there developed a small collection of small home groups across America. And then over the next few years, they, and each of us as we joined in, began to see the scripture through Lee’s eyes. It was “perfect.” It gave a bunch of anarchist Americans more responsibility for their own meetings. It elevated the group above those who were not of that mind. It was enjoyable. You didn’t have to worry about falling asleep during the sermon because even when there sort of was one, it wasn’t long, and the choruses of “amen” wouldn’t let you sleep.

And we learned to see the Bible the way Lee did. We liked the kind of things we were taught. Forget God’s greatness, He’s small enough to eat! Don’t worry about that besetting sin, just keep calling on the Lord and it will eventually just go away!

Don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying that there is not some truth to some or all of this. But on the whole, it was a specific diet of targeted doctrines and teachings and ways. And we learned to like it. It was not the whole truth. It was not properly extracted from the Word of God. It was not exegesis, but eisegesis. Not getting from the scripture, but putting into it. But we didn’t really know that.

Now we have an overall view of how the Christian life, alone and in community, should be that is informed by what we learned from Lee and the LRC. We realize that there were a lot of bad things done. We think that the “ground of the church” is not real.

Or do we? Are we still trying to figure out how to do it the right way? While we may think we are done with Lee’s teachings, do we still default to Lee’s way to read it? Do we accept that there is some overriding principle called “economy” that reinterprets scripture? Do we reject Lee, but down inside think he got it right? Do we accept that it is a given that the Jews who didn’t go back to Jerusalem from Babylon were defective? That their scattering all over the earth was in error? Do we think that it is all about what we think and believe rather than what we do? And do we still look skeptically at anyone who suggests that we should “do” anything other than read our Bibles and call on the Lord? Is our knee-jerk reaction to the name on a sign outside a meeting place to be to knock them down a notch? Is the fact that they are part of a larger group that does anything more than share a common name automatically some seedy error warned against in Revelation? Are paid preachers automatically “hirelings”? Is any kind of structure presumed to be simply in opposition to the move of the Spirit?

Do we still think that there is some special organ in our being called the “spirit” and that this organ is the only place we should be trying to find God? Do you still “turn to your spirit” as if my spirit is anything of such importance? Do you think it is “religious” to say “Sunday” or “Sunday School” or pray to God the Father about your problems, and your needs, and to ask for forgiveness yet again?

Do we presume that a proper meeting will have testimonies? Do we think that limiting the main speaking to 2 or 3 is unscriptural? Do we think that everyone should “prophesy” (or at least be free to) or else it is a degraded meeting?

Many of the things that I mention are not necessarily wrong, or bad, although a few probably are.

But as a collective, they are, at best, a subset of Christian thinking, ways, practices, doctrines, etc. And for many of us, when we think about meetings, read the scripture, or fellowship with other Christians, we default into these modes. And we really do tend to try to come up with LRC ways and practices on so much that it looks as if we did not wake up and discover that we had been mired in an insane asylum, but rather just in near-perfection once we got rid of Lee and then manage to excommunicate the BBs. Only problem is that no one except those who were also in that near-perfection seem to think it is so near-perfect.

What I’m saying is that, all packaged together, we tend to wear Lee-colored glasses no matter how bad we think Lee was. We may have exchanged our Lee’s for some LRC’s but that just means the same glasses with a correction for a slight astigmatism.

And once again, I’m not saying that everything LRC is simply bad. But when we come here to discuss alternatives, there is an extreme tendency to speak as if the default is a slightly improved LRC rather than anything else. We may have a problem with Lee, but we really do think that Christianity is mooing cows. We dismiss their thinking so quickly that if we could react that quickly with our eyes we could actually see a bullet coming and duck before being shot.

So the question (not to be answered in my blog, but elsewhere) is, how much of the practices, teachings, ways, etc. of the rest of Christianity, in specific or in general, do you think are:
1. Scriptural (scripture actually supports)
2. Unscriptural (scripture actually stands against)
3. Neither (scripture says nothing one way or the other)