View Full Version : Daily Devotional Inspirations — Analysis
I am reading back through some of the devotionals posted by Sons to Glory! (StG) in the thread “Daily Devotional Inspirations” (now closed). As I was not active on the forum for many of these postings, I am reading back through them now. I am not commenting on all of them, however, there are several that have a slant that I believe are skewed in a way that is consistent, at least somewhat, with some base aspects of Lee’s teaching. There is a recurring theme of expecting God to simply make it happen without out will or effort. This is much like an aspect of Lee’s on God’s economy teaching, namely the charge to “wait for the dispensing” before undertaking anything that is other than strictly an inner-life kind of spiritual. And this kind of teaching is not exclusive to Lee and the LC. It is also common in a less overtly dogmatic way among inner-life teachers.
And there may be other similarities I find in the process.
While I realize that it is not generally considered kosher to discuss things outside of Nee, Lee, the LSM, the BBs, and the LC, this kind of teaching remains as a kind of hook to even ex-members who have tried to leave Lee and the LC behind and end out in what many of us consider a sort of LC Lite, or LC v2.0. Since true release from the clutches of the LC may require that some manage to escape even this not-entirely LC kind of teaching, I believe that going through it is of some value. In any case, I will try to show how even the non-LC version of the teachings are too like the problematic LC teachings to be ignored.
As I will also be commenting some on StG’s comments, please understand that I am not attacking him. And I hope he sees it that way as he may possibly be lurking even if not commenting. I am trying to show what it is in his comments that causes me to see the remnants of the LC in his spiritual life. I am not concerned about whether he is convinced that he has dumped Lee and the old LC ways, but rather that he may not see how it is not as true as he thinks. And he is entitled to his opinion about what he thinks is healthy teaching. I just hope that — if I am right about things — he might begin to at least see a little of it and do some digging for himself. I do not expect him to just fall all over himself getting rid of the things I think are unhealthy. It will take time. And he probably will never agree with me in full, if at all.
But also, maybe some others will see that I have seen and do the same kind of look at it for themselves. And if we get some discussion going on some of the issues, maybe someone will show evidence of where I am still blind or even have taken my analysis too far. It wouldn’t be the first time such a thing happened.
Last, I probably will not do them in order to the extent that I do comment. My first will be from Post #12 (just because I happened to stop there as I was rapidly backing up in the thread and read that one first).
Also, if you need to refer back to the original posts (I won't always quote them all in their entirety), here it is: Daily Devotional Inspirations (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=6743).
January 9
He must increase, but I must decrease. (John 3:30)
What is spiritual growth? What is spiritual maturity? What is it to go on in the Lord? I fear we have got mixed ideas about this. Many think that spiritual maturity is a more comprehensive knowledge of Christian doctrine, a larger grasp of scriptural truth, a wider expanse of the knowledge of the things of God; and many such features are recorded as marks of growth, development, and spiritual maturity. Beloved, it is nothing of the kind.
The hallmark of true spiritual development and maturity is this, that we have grown so much less and the Lord Jesus has grown so much more. The mature soul is one who is small in his or her own eyes, but in whose eyes the Lord Jesus is great. That is growth. We may know a very great deal, have a wonderful grasp of doctrine, of teaching, of truth, even of the Scriptures, and yet be spiritually very small, very immature, and very childish. (There is all the difference between being childish and child-like.) Real spiritual growth is just this: I decrease, He increases. It is the Lord Jesus becoming more. You can test spiritual growth by that.
From: The Cross and the Way of Life - Chapter 4I will skip StG’s comments here. His comments were more about what Sparks said which is not, in isolation and without trying to force it onto the verse mentioned, bad. There probably are places to find scripture suggesting much of what Sparks wrote.
But my complaint on this one is probably more generic to teachers in general — LC, inner-life, Evangelical, even mainstream — and not just to Lee and the LC, and inner-life teachers. It is that even if the teaching in this devotional is well-founded somewhere in the scripture, it is strained, at best, to say that John 3:30 is actually any kind of support for it. And the reason I care is that some of the time the teaching is not actually supported anywhere else. But it sounds so good that it just has to be true. But if this verse isn’t talking about what Sparks made of it and no other verses do either, then scripture doesn’t clearly support it. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It just means we are not sure that it is or is not true. And I am prone to refusing to take much thought of unsupported teachings just because they sound nice or spiritual.
Before someone complains that the content of the devotional IS supported by other verses and is therefore true, please remember that I am not saying that what Sparks said is not true. But that he used a verse, and by implication a larger passage, that does not support it. So if this is the first time you have learned about what he is trying to teach, you are not being supplied with scriptural evidence that it is true. This really needed a different anchor verse.
John 3:30 is part of an account of a discussion between John the Baptist and his followers at the point in which his calling was diminishing. There is no attempt to be metaphorical about things, but rather to state plainly to those followers that his ministry was coming to an end while that of Jesus was increasing. He had been sent to prepare the way, and now Jesus was on the scene and preaching, so the need for preparation was ending.
This one verse is a specific comment that is not about having the Lord grow more in us as we take less personal stock in ourselves. It is about the very specific fact that since Jesus was now ministering, John the Baptist’s task of preparing the way was in a state of decrease. Jesus was becoming a known “commodity.” John had done his part fairly well. At this point, since Jesus was now available to follow — or at least take a look — there was a decreasing need to have someone running around saying that this Son of God was “now appearing on a hillside near you.”
It is true that there is some indication elsewhere that for John to still have some followers rather than just closing shop and sending them to Jesus was a problem. But that is not covered in these verses. And it is not entirely errant to suggest that later words, either in the gospels or epistles, about taking the cross might be reasonably applied here. But they are not. It could be used as an example. But the rule is not found in an example that does not refer to the rule. Find the rule elsewhere. This teaching is tied to other verses. If, after showing the meaning of “taking the cross” you want to look back at this passage in John 3 concerning John the Baptist, that is fine. But John 3, whether in general or specifically in verse 30, does not actually make the point. It simply demonstrates that John realized that his ministry as forerunner was ending because the one to be introduced was now becoming known fairly broadly.
"He must increase and I must decrease." Not really about my spiritual life, but about the fact that John's "buggy whip" was no longer necessary. And if this is the place you have to go to find the evidence for the teaching, then it is not really a teaching supported by scripture. If instead, it is a sound teaching supported by other scripture, then to teach that you need to refer to those verses, not this one. After establishing that the teaching is sound, it might be reasonable to show how it could be applied here. But John 3:30 is not the basis for establishing what Sparks appears to have made of it.
I will say it once again. The point is not that Sparks' specific teaching here is not scriptural, but that it is not made true by the verse that he used. If other verses will support it as true, then it is a true teaching. But either way, this verse does not actually supply support. In effect, Sparks has lied to us by claiming that John 3:30 is teaching something that it actually is not teaching. The lie is not that there is no foundation for the teaching, but that it is possible to turn the oranges in John 3:30 into the applesauce that he taught.
How many times can you find that stretches like this one were used to create some "important" teaching that is not supported elsewhere? Are you willing to apply sound thinking to the teachers you follow to see if they are actually handling scripture in a proper way? For Lee (and we will see that for several so-called inner-life teachers) a "sense" that something is spiritual is all that is needed to make it appear scriptural when the scripture does not actually support it. And proper handling of the Word is an important yardstick for vetting teachers. If they are too often not handling the Word properly, how can you be sure that they ever are, or that they do not have other motives for their errors?
I think OBW is on the right track here. Stretching the meaning of passages and saying they support an idea that was not the writer's original intent is risky at best and misleading at worst.
We've seen Witness Lee and the LR do this a lot. Some examples: Saying we have God's life so we are God; saying that the apostles appointed elders in every city therefore one set of tightly coordinated elders are to lead the whole church in the city; all the way to taking a verse in the OT about burning out a house infected with leprosy to justify shutting down NT churches (and setting up new ones friendly to your movement). There are many other examples.
The Bible contains so many clear teachings. Why do we need to wrangle meaning out of verses which are not clearly stating the meaning we are trying to wrangle? I've said before that one characteristic of aberrant groups is they have a high degree of subjectivity when it comes to interpreting scripture and God's leading. I suggest sticking to the clear, plain truths in the Bible, and not go hunting for hidden truths. There are enough plain truths for many lifetimes of blessing.
.. one characteristic of aberrant groups is they have a high degree of subjectivity when it comes to interpreting scripture and God's leading. I suggest sticking to the clear, plain truths in the Bible, and not go hunting for hidden truths. There are enough plain truths for many lifetimes of blessing.Notice the "I" of the verse - it originally was John the B, now in the hands of Sparks or some other inner-life allegorist it becomes a narrative of their own subjective "journey with Christ".
Number one, that wasn't what the verse was about, as OBW notes. Number two, in saying this, you've become the object of the discussion, not Jesus. Even the "I am diminishing" comment, seeming so spiritual and self-effacing, is still a dangerous mis-aim. Because even the supposedly "diminished you" or "decreased you" is still not what the gospel was about.
Sorry but the focus of the gospel was, is, and remains Jesus - his ascendancy, his obedience to the Father, his compassion, his truth shared to all and especially the Twelve. We can see instructive examples around Jesus: those of Peter, of John and James, of Mary and Martha, of Zacchaeus the tax collector and John the baptiser. But their experiences aren't the focus, ever. In fact the very title: "Daily Devotional Inspirations" shows a mis-aiming. It's not your or my devotion that should be the topic here - it is Jesus'. He's the "sure peg" and there's no other. His subjective spiritual experiences have passed through death to glory. Mine have not.
I don't see how the contrast could be any more clear. One set of experiences is worthy of our faith, and one isn't.
Well, Cal & aron know what I'm talking about.
And the intent was not to say that we can never be "spoken to" from a verse about something that is not actually there. But it should never rise to the level of "a teaching." I have already done the analysis of several others. While this is not the only kind of "error" that I have often found, it is a significant issue.
And the fact that one Christian tells another about something they think they saw in a scripture that is not actually there is not a terrible thing. But when they are taking the position of teacher, or want to start a small get-together of Christians to talk about it, then there should be standards. And having a good-sounding idea that is in search of a verse that could be stretched to support it is not a quality that should be found in Christian teachers. And people trying to find a soapbox for their nifty thoughts should realize that they are then holding themselves out as teachers and are subject to more serious scrutiny.
DECEMBER 3
WRECKING BUT LOVING
A seasoned saint was asked by a despairing Christian, "Doesn't the world look to you like a wreck?" "Yes," was the cheerful and confident reply, "like the wreck of a bursting seed." Any of us who have watched the first sprouting of an oak tree from the heart of a decaying acorn will understand what this means. Before the acorn can bring forth the oak it must become a wreck, No plant ever came from any but a wrecked seed.
Our Lord uses this fact to teach us the meaning of His processes with us, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone; but if it die, it brings forth much fruit" (John 12:24).
The explanation of the apparent wreckage of the world at large or of our own personal lives in particular is here set forth. Looked at in this light, we can understand how it is that the Lord can be good yet permit the existence of sorrow and wrong in the world He has created and in the lives of the human beings He loves,
It is God's very goodness that compels Him to permit sorrow and wrong. He knows that only through such apparent wreckage can His glorious purposes for us be brought to pass. And we whose hearts also long for that fruition, will, if we understand His ways, be able to praise Him for all His goodness even when things seem their hardest and most mysterious.Yes, the world is a wreck. But it is not described as the “wreck of a bursting seed” in John 12:24. The world is a wreck because of the decay of the fall. It is currently ruled by the curse of the fall, both physically and in the nature of mankind.
Jesus’ used the metaphor of the seed falling into the earth, dying, and then sprouting up like a stalk of wheat that had many seeds, which is like a tree with strong branches, leaves, and ultimately even more seeds to grow more trees (not the example actually used). HWS correctly says this metaphor was to describe His process. But was it his process for going through death and resurrection so that his life could result in more grains of wheat that are infused with his life, or is he describing a process whereby the world will be “wrecked” and cause people to turn to him? I think the former and not the latter.
If there is anything positive to be said about the wreck that is the world, it is that it will drive some to seek for a better hope, and will cause the wayward Christian to return to the Father’s house where there is plenty.
If the “wreck of the world” is to be used as a new metaphor, it would not be to tie to Jesus’ words about the one grain of wheat bearing much fruit, but to the declaration that God uses all things for good to those who are in Christ Jesus.
As in at least one other of these devotionals, the issue isn’t that the lesson brought from an example or verse doesn’t have some validity, but that it is not being tied to a verse that is actually giving that lesson. And until we find the right verse(s), we cannot be sure that the lesson is actually of the scripture or simply good and spiritual sounding but with no support. In this case, I cannot see how the wreck that is the world links to the grain of wheat. For the Christian, it does tie to the working together of all things for our good. And to the unbeliever, while not necessarily found as a specific statement of scripture (I haven’t found it — doesn’t mean it’s not there) it is a reasonable understanding of the kinds of things that cause people to seek. Yet to simply call it positive and be cheerful about it is to potentially be callous about the plight of those around us who also need our God-commanded love — not just in gospel tracts and conversations turned to the gospel — but to get through days, weeks, months, and even lifetimes of hardship.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.