Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
This post gives the details.
|
This letter very much reveals Lee's strange and warped thinking in several ways.
First, and this is a characteristic I noticed several times about him, which I don't think we ever discussed. He would consider that a brother who changed his mind was either weak and wishy-washy, or that the brother disobeyed the Lord at some time--either when he first made the decision or later when he changed his mind. Lee considers that Ingalls must have had the Lord's leading to sign the loyalty pact when he did, and so should not go back on it, otherwise he never should have signed it.
That is completely unreasonable thinking! We all make decisions with imperfect knowledge, and who knows what new knowledge in the future might alter our perception of things. Lee seemed to think if you "had the Lord's leading" to do something a year ago, and if you don't have it now, then you shouldn't have had it then. That is just plain silly!
But it would help explain Lee's hard-headedness.
Also, again, Lee acts as if it's a given that "the Lord's Recovery" is some real and specially commissioned thing of God. But it is far from a given. Presuming this and expecting other to believe "the Recovery" is something Christians should be sold out for is non-scriptural and just off the reservation. "The Recovery" as something God will build or organize with man's cooperation is a non-biblical idea from start to finish. The Bible says God will build only one thing: the Church. Period.
Then there is Lee's equating "the ministry" (meaning his) as God's unique speaking to his people. God's unique speaking to his people is Christ, the Word of God, through the power of the Holy Spirit. That's it. It has never been, nor will it ever be,
nor even can it be, summed up in the one ministry of one person or group of persons claiming special status.
The confusion running rampant in Lee's mind in this letter is astounding. But it does demonstrate why the movement went so far off the rails.