OBW's Blog

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

It's a fresh perspective, actually.

I saw the tail end of the glory days of the 70s in my experience and watched the sharp turn happen.

It still amazes me what happened back then in the name of "the morale" and "the impact" - two completely non-scriptural terms deduced from Lee's interpretation of how "the one accord" might be achieved practically.

But now it's 20 years later and a decade beyond Lee's death.

Being clean of the history, what do you see? And apparently, all you see is the good stuff that still remains. But I think you absolutely have to give a much bigger pass regarding all the entrenched religious practice.

In my locality, I didn't have the experience of sitting through one-person-speaking-everybody-listening meetings. (OK, that's a slight exaggeration because that's what they were actually turning into when I left in the middle of "the New Way" being promoted everywhere else.) There wasn't much religious form at all. It was very unstructured. Virtually every meeting had the character of a prayer meeting and occasionally the "burden" of the meeting was never even accomplished.

But when you come upon them today, and you're given HWMR and instructions on how to "prophesy" and directions about observing seven feasts and such, can someone just look past all that encrusted junk?

Apparently so.

But it's got to be far less attractive overall to new ones and no amount of fasting and prayer can make that one go away.

The new wine busts out of old wineskins every time.

Your comments remind of the very reasons that I keep finding myself conflicted about what should happen to the LC. When we look at the general workings of a meeting from back in the 70s, it was new and fresh. And although it may never have been THE WAY, it was quite attractive.

Then the New Way made it less atractive, and then it became a thoroughly entrenched form that didn't even resemble the one that we had in the 70s that might have been worth keeping.

But those meetings where one person shared provided a way for those whose gift/charge was teaching to provide what the rest of us needs. The only problem is whether what is being taught is worthy of the time allotted. I have great respect for the diligence and care provided by those whose daily toil is in the Word. Of course, most of the sharing back in the LC was not often from their own toil, but from repeating someone else's. (Not saying that is always bad.)

aron just wrote something about the fact that there are psychological issues surrounding all religion. And he is right. I note that there is definitely a "stuck in the past" mentality for some of the older ones where I attend, as well as a kind of dogma in the place of sound faith. Grace is nothing about us. It is strictly some free gift. They haven't read where Paul said (I think in Titus) that grace teaches us to obey.

But while aron was correct, that does not make all psychological issues the same or demand that we either go after all of them or leave them all alone.

The form of meetings in the 60s and 70s was a reasonable pattern to consider. The foundational teachings were similar to most of evangelical Christianity. But the special teachings of Lee are too often questionable (at a minimum). And the structure and operation of the system has developed to the point that it is not a healthy environment for the people that it has collected and taught to disdain anything else.

Except in peculiar assemblies, Baptists may think theirs is the best Christian group, but they live normal lives and are encouraged to seek whatever help they may need in all types of situations. I observe the effects of the admonishment to just call on the Lord more and go to more meetings. The two do not compare. There is something that seems too much like the movie The Village.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

When we look at the general workings of a meeting from back in the 70s, it was new and fresh. And although it may never have been THE WAY, it was quite attractive.

Then the New Way made it less atractive, and then it became a thoroughly entrenched form that didn't even resemble the one that we had in the 70s that might have been worth keeping.

But those meetings where one person shared provided a way for those whose gift/charge was teaching to provide what the rest of us needs. The only problem is whether what is being taught is worthy of the time allotted. I have great respect for the diligence and care provided by those whose daily toil is in the Word.

The meetings in mutuality are the perfect form, as far as I can see. The older form with a designated leader were still pretty close as there was still much freedom for mutual sharing. To encourage more mutuality by moving the top one down a notch was just fine in my view. It's hard to break that habit and to not have it be a habit in the first place. We must all labor daily in the Word.

But what I understand these meetings have become is a shell, form over substance. I cannot testify myself about that. I can only see what they say about themselves that corresponds with that impression.

But there are many of us who remember a mutuality which was spontaneous and not organized. I testify that I have seen God in such meetings.

[OBW]

In responding to a discussion a few weeks ago (can’t remember whether it was in this forum or the Bereans) I reread 1 Corinthians 14. Something caught my eye that I did not expect, specifically in verses 26 through 33. So I read it again, and have returned to it periodically for these few weeks. And as I was reading back through this past section of my blog where I expressed my concerns about the LRC, I note that there was a little bit of the same topic found here. It began in a portion of one of YP’s comments:

Originally Posted by YP0534

In my locality, I didn't have the experience of sitting through one-person-speaking-everybody-listening meetings. (OK, that's a slight exaggeration because that's what they were actually turning into when I left in the middle of "the New Way" being promoted everywhere else.) There wasn't much religious form at all. It was very unstructured. Virtually every meeting had the character of a prayer meeting and occasionally the "burden" of the meeting was never even accomplished.

But when you come upon them today, and you're given HWMR and instructions on how to "prophesy" and directions about observing seven feasts and such, can someone just look past all that encrusted junk?

I noted to myself that YP’s experience was not like the experience I had in which there was often either one or two LRC equivalents of a sermon each Sunday morning followed by what the Assemblies of God would call a “testimony meeting.” And this was almost a decade before him (different city). Maybe it would seem that the sermon/lesson time diminished at the end of the 70s and into the early 80s, only to return in parallel with the New Way.

In any case, I followed his comment with the following:

Originally Posted by OBW

When we look at the general workings of a meeting from back in the 70s, it was new and fresh. And although it may never have been THE WAY, it was quite attractive.

Then the New Way made it less atractive, and then it became a thoroughly entrenched form that didn't even resemble the one that we had in the 70s that might have been worth keeping.

But those meetings where one person shared provided a way for those whose gift/charge was teaching to provide what the rest of us needs. The only problem is whether what is being taught is worthy of the time allotted. I have great respect for the diligence and care provided by those whose daily toil is in the Word. Of course, most of the sharing back in the LC was not often from their own toil, but from repeating someone else's. (Not saying that is always bad.)

So I read 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 again. And again. Several times. Even again this morning as I started this entry.

What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two — or at the most three — should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace — as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

We are familiar with Paul’s restriction on those who would speak in tongues in a meeting to be only two or three, and then only with an interpreter. But then in verse 29 (the start of the second paragraph quoted) Paul also designates two or three prophets. All others should weigh carefully what is said. He then says that if a revelation comes to someone else, the one speaking should give way. Then he says all can prophesy in turn (or one-by-one).

Now there is a bunch of uncertainty as to what kind of revelation Paul is meaning when he suggests that someone speaking should simply give way. I doubt that he simply meant that if someone who is “weigh[ing] carefully what is said,” suddenly has an “aha” moment, and jumps up with “I get it!!” that the speaker should then sit down and his time is over. While that would be an exciting experience, I’m not sure that it reflects the God of peace but rather a God of disorder.

But beyond that, while verse 31 says “you can all prophesy in turn,” does that mean “all” in the sense of the entire assembly, or in the context of those who are among the two or three?

If it means the entire assembly, then that would make a mockery of Paul’s words concerning order and peace in the assembly, and make his request for “two or three prophets” to speak in an orderly fashion irrelevant. But if it means strictly those within the two or three, then “all” becomes an uncertain term.

“All” is a funny word. It can mean everything that can be reasonably included. If we speak of “all people,” it can mean everyone, either alive, or even ever alive. But it also can mean all people within a previously defined set of people,. for example, all Americans, or all Texans. It could even mean “all” of the three designated to speak that are a subset of 30, 300, or even 3,000.

And I admit that I tend to believe that, given the context of these two paragraphs, Paul is writing about order. He has designated a reasonable way to proceed. And to say that “all” here is simply everyone present at the assembly is out of context.

But I also am not so certain about this. Designating what is probably a rather small part of the whole, then saying “all” exclusively about them seems odd, although not linguistically incorrect. Yet giving the kind of direction that he has to reflect order in the church meeting and then effectively throw it open to a kind of chaos that “all” meaning the entire congregation would entail seems contradictory.

But beyond that, the very notion that some — elders or whoever — should exercise diligence and discernment over who is permitted to teach in the assembly, makes the “open mike” quite problematic. It forces the potential conflict of personalities that will arise when exercising care for the assembly into the public eye, even becoming a disruption to the meeting.

I’m sure that someone will suggest that I have just shot every kind of “testimony meeting” down as unacceptable. And it might seem so. But I do not have such a desire. I believe that there is a place for such times, even if not as prevalently practiced as in the LRC (in any time period). I might say more about this in a future post.

But it is interesting that Paul elsewhere stated that there are “some prophets,” along with some others. And here in 1 Corinthians he states that two or three prophets should speak. He was specific in defining a subset of the congregation. He did not say that two or three of the people present can speak. He said two or three prophets. And he said “two or three,” not “all present,” or “all regenerated who are present,” or even “all prophets.”

Now it may seem that I have made a conclusion. That would be partly correct and partly incorrect. While writing this, I think that I began to see through the fog a little more clearly. As a result of that, I do have a stronger leaning toward one way. But when I said that there are open questions, I meant it. I do not consider this a settled position. But more than that, I do not consider the ultimate answers to the questions to be matters of the faith. It is not important that it be one way or the other as far as orthodoxy is concerned. I don’t think orthodoxy is concerned with this.

But it appears that the LRC understanding of “all can prophesy” as meaning everyone present in the meeting may be the result of contextomy (quoting out of context). In this case, the result seems to be that a single sentence — in the middle of a paragraph about order and only a few speaking — disagrees with the context and gives the nod to everyone speaking.

I’m not sure that is what Paul was talking about.

I welcome brief comments here within the blog. If you want to do a significant discussion on this, start a new thread in the appropriate forum section and link back to this post. I'm not sure I have much more than I have already laid out, but I would be interested in participating if it seems interesting to others.

[ZNPaaneah]

In my experience the best meetings, the ones that I felt had been visited by the Lord were those in which the testimonies spoke to me. It was not the speaking of the elders that captured me for the LC, likewise it was not the teaching of WL that fed me, and during the really tough times it wasn't the thought of a message from so and so that kept me coming to the meetings.

When it says "all" can speak, I think (from my experience), it means that anyone in the meeting can speak, whether a young teenager, a small sister, a despised brother or sister, etc. You cannot help but have saints of repute, so it is crucial that "all" can speak.

From my own experience I can tell you that both in Houston and later in Odessa there were definitely times when the elders of the church did not want me to speak. The clash of personalities as you said, but the reality is when you speak in the meeting you let the church judge. That is why they never prevented me from speaking. The meeting doesn't belong to the elders, it belongs to the saints.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In my experience the best meetings, the ones that I felt had been visited by the Lord were those in which the testimonies spoke to me. It was not the speaking of the elders that captured me for the LC, likewise it was not the teaching of WL that fed me, and during the really tough times it wasn't the thought of a message from so and so that kept me coming to the meetings.

When it says "all" can speak, I think (from my experience), it means that anyone in the meeting can speak, whether a young teenager, a small sister, a despised brother or sister, etc. You cannot help but have saints of repute, so it is crucial that "all" can speak.

From my own experience I can tell you that both in Houston and later in Odessa there were definitely times when the elders of the church did not want me to speak. The clash of personalities as you said, but the reality is when you speak in the meeting you let the church judge. That is why they never prevented me from speaking. The meeting doesn't belong to the elders, it belongs to the saints.

I appreciate your thoughts. And they are not irrelevant. But I am not prone to direct my thoughts about these verses based on feelings. There is a reason that Paul said what he did. There is a context. And there are the words.

As I mentioned, with the context of this particular passage, "all" would not seem to refer to the whole assembly. Rather to the whole of the ones designated for the task at hand, namely "prophesying."

And further, in the context of this chapter, and the broader discussion of gifts that began a couple of chapters before, prophesying is not just something that everybody does. It is a spiritual gift. Paul may have actually said that he wished that all would prophesy. And in a similar way, certain denominations say that they believe that all should speak in tongues. But the underlying principle — there are various gifts given to each of us for the benefit of the whole group — suggests otherwise. Paul may desire it. But that is not necessarily the way that "gifts" are passed out. Lee was wrong to insist that it simply means that we all can.

And having a good experience from the testimony of someone who is otherwise not going to be on the list of 2 or 3 prophets does not alter what Paul said. If the gospel and the church was going to be about pure democracy of gifts, about ordered anarchy, then Jesus would not have kept 12 close to himself (and three of those closer than the others) and everyone else just along for the ride. He would not have sent only 70. He would have sent everyone. The result of his teachings would not have been two different things happening at the same time — the apostle's teaching and the breaking of bread from house to house. Both are important. But the teaching aspect of the meetings is not a testimony meeting. It is the clearly articulated and expounded truth from Christ and the scripture. Our testimonies, whether spoken in a meeting, or over bread, or just in the living of our lives, are the proof that what is taught is true.

And for all the claims of those special meetings in which we all "prophesied," we were still mostly focused on the effects of the special realizations of the LRC, the truths taught by Lee, and how they impressed us. Not as much about how our lives changed. Nothing about how we learned how to love our neighbor as we helped a poor person on the street.

I have a new thought that I am chewing on that I will post here in a few days.

[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)

[OBW]

I know that I have previously said some of these things. But they are lost in various threads. Plus I have added some to it. I do not expect comments here. If something is actually worthy of discussion, please start a thread and do it there, not here.

New considerations as we wander further from our LRC home base:

I’ll start with the one that is still most troubling to me. The RCC. There are clearly errors going on there. But I’m not sure that the most egregious ones are actually understood correctly by most of us. Yes, they pray to “Saints” and to Mary. But even in the case of Mary, I believe that you will find that their understanding is that they somehow missed the “no other mediator” thing and think they need help getting Jesus’ attention. They have not made Saint, or even Mary, out to be deity. Just mediators. And while they really need to pray to God, they are intending that their prayer get to God, not just to this “Saint” or to Mary. When they confess their sins in that little box, there are telling their sins one to another. It is incorrect to think that this absolves them, or that the penance they do afterward does either. But it is their (erroneous) hope that their prayer is getting to God. Or is it completely erroneous. I’m not as certain as I used to be.

All the excessive imagery and the overt focus on Mary and the Saints rather than Jesus is surely a problem. And there are probably a lot of regular folks down in the trenches that understand that Mary and Saint stuff more as a kind of idolatry, even if the official position on it all is different.

But isn’t that sort of like the Arminianism I grew up with in the Assemblies of God (which sprang mostly from the Methodists in the early 1900s). I thought it meant you just had to do any random, small bad thing, including thinking bad about someone and you were off the saved list and going straight to Hell. Of course in the real doctrine it was not so easy to fall off. But a whole lot of us thought it anyway. But not all. I recall my mother saying years after we left that she understood it as not such a black/white simple thing. And she was no theologian. Didn’t even go to college. Well, one semester in about her late 40s.

And to morph from the RCC — all that stuff about works. It seems that they just believe in works salvation. Or is it that they just don’t teach a line-in-the-sand, single point in time conversion, but rather a training that helps you learn and eventually believe. And obey. Are your RCC, Anglican, or Lutheran, etc., friends simply not saved because they didn’t come to that salvation through a sort of crisis point of decision to believe or not believe and can now quote day and time for you?

Not really that bad. Now if they could just get rid of the statues, and confessional, and rosaries, and Mary. Well not get rid of her, just put her in her rightful place. No. I won’t be going there any time soon. But I’m not as certain that they are merely the whore of Babylon in which it is an accident if you managed to become a true Christian.

So what about the Lutherans and Anglicans? Is their liturgy just too stuffy to really be of Christ? Are the reformed/Presbyterians and Methodists not far behind?

And what about this transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, or one cup or lots of little cups, or a bowl that you dip the bread in? Are the teachings so wrong that they are apostate? Is the form the important thing? Or is it the remembrance? Is it the forced stop from the rest of life, including Christian teaching, and refocus on Jesus and his sacrifice?

Do we have a piano? And/or organ? Acoustic guitars? Other instruments, including electronic and percussion? Or do we just sing a capella? Does it really matter?

Are we affiliated with other similar churches? Officially? Unofficially? Or are we just a single congregation, small or large? Do we baptize believers only, or also “the whole household” and therefore each new one added to the household? (I honestly believe that the former is preferred. But it also is the way I have always been taught since childhood.)

Is scripture the ultimate authority? And if we believe that, whose interpretation is correct? And since we do not all agree, does that undermine the authority of scripture?

Or is it only on the things that are central to the faith that we make such strong demands?

Is it possible that we do need to read and understand scripture in community. In a place where diverse thoughts can be explored and considered, and although we may not entirely agree, we can assent to accept a reading. Does this suggest that the RCC is actually sort of right to say that it is the church that is the ultimate authority because it is the church that decides what it is that scripture says? Or does the fact that they limit the “church” to the magisterium defeat that claim? But does any claim that we all get to “vote” just as preposterous?

Is a regular church service that invites people in, speaks the Word, speaks from the Word, invites participation and contemplation in communion and prayer, and then sends the people out deficient because it is too regimented? (This is sort of a description of some liturgies for worship.) Is it automatically deficient because of its “oldness”? Or is the only “oldness” to be found in people no matter their mode of worship? Is it deficient because it is “traditional”? Is it deficient because it is “religious”?

And when reading scripture, is it reasonable to allow any single lens to rule all of it? Whether that lens is God’s economy (dispensing), charismatic gifts, doing good, Calvinism, ground, or even the church as the body of Christ.

Are any descriptions of God and of his relationship with man all encompassing? Is grace everything? Does being born of spirit rule everything? Is the end of the law simply no more law and therefore freedom? Or is it the end of doing what is righteous about the law simply because we are told to do it but rather because we now have a life inside us that provides the power to do it? Is everything about abiding? Is everything about shepherds? Or leaven? Or vines and branches?

The LRC had a limited number of pet overlays — ground, dispensing, turning to your spirit (that's nearly all of it). Was this emphasis the reason that the broad scope of the full gospel was missed, and the emphasis came to be on meetings? And the leadership began to rule with a more authoritative hand than any of the “clergy” that they claimed was the scourge of the Christian existence?

Do any of those overlays describe everything about us or God? Is God simply love? Or is he also power and justice, etc.? Can an overlay that describes one aspect of our relationship with God be taken everywhere in scripture and cause those verses to be reinterpreted through that lens? Or does that destroy or mask other aspects of our relationship?

These are many of the questions that I have been grappling with. I actually think that I don’t like some of the answers. Not because I think they are bad. But because they are so different from my upbringing. My 18 years of Arminian Pentecostalism, followed by many years of Calvinist, fundamental, evangelicalism, 14.5 years of which was in the LRC. And now in a Bible church that has mixed in some of the liturgical practices as we have one of the best mostly volunteer worship bands in the area (imho) and continue to have pretty sound DTS quality teaching. And as I read and learn from McLaren and some other Emergents, along with the standard old-line writers.

And when I consider the LRC and the teachings of Lee, I find one of the most extreme systems, and one that is almost totally intolerant of all others. A collection of teachings that is more dogmatic than most of the ones it complains about. And a collection of teachings that do not include everything that was taught. Why? Possibly because an overlay of God’s economy was allowed to dismiss obedience. To dismiss the works side of the equation. To only see the abiding and spirituality. To wait around for God to do it all.

I’m not sure that I can keep the two arenas separate. And I’m not sure that I can keep my desire for moving forward out of the look back into the LRC.

And if you take exception to some of these comments, know that as I wrote them, I still have reservations about many of them. But I also have reason to believe that they are more right than I dared to hint.

Enough for now.