Apostles

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee was a second- or third-rate Bible expositor, when compared to Origen and Erasmus. But he was certainly a better Bible expositor than I, and many pastors and reverends out there tending to the flock.

Despite the language issues, and more correctly, the difficulty in understanding him through his accent at times, he was a fairly charismatic speaker. He had a learned manner with respect to so much of the Bible. But even without Daystar and his sons, the way he took and manhandled scripture does not allow me to treat him as so great a Bible expositor relative to the average small-church pastor. And maybe even a bunch of us, including you.

My problem with giving him any significant marks in Bible exposition is that it would seem that he went at it with a goal to get a result, therefore (in hindsight) almost everything he said needed more than casual checking. His methods of Bible exposition seem too much like setting up experiments to prove or disprove something, then setting out to find only positive results, even by reinterpreting negative results.

I suspect that the average small-congregation pastor at least relies on many sources including sound commentaries and other writings. While Lee obviously did not make everything up, what he did get from others did not often retain its original integrity.

But then the very fact of the Daystar and Philip Lee fiascoes (not to mention those going back to Taipei) suggests that his skills at Bible exposition should be deemed irrelevant and he be cast aside as a wolf. As someone trying to feed his belly at the expense of the flock. So even if a whole lot of what he said was true, and even some of it profound, he loses credibility and should not even be consulted.