|
|
|||||||
| Blogosphere @ LocalChurchDiscussions Each Blog is it's own thread. Please only one Blog per user! Guests are welcome to start their own Blog - Simply hit "New Thread" and Blog away! |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| 04-16-2024 08:39 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog I decided that yet another unwanted post in the thread on prophecy and the end times would just be placed here. - - - - I guess my actual question is not clear enough. Let me restate it. Do you read Revelation to figure out how things may be pointing to the end times, or do you recognize that the end times are always "at the door"? That the world is always inundated with darkness and the gospel is always moving into that darkness? That the time of reckoning for each of us is uncertain and could be either many years in the future, or before we would otherwise lay our heads down to sleep for the night? Do we live as if that judgment seat that we will stand before is not necessarily years away, but possibly only moments? If that is your understanding. If the otherwise nondescript day is actually your portal into what is to come, or alternately, just one of many on that road. In view of all of that, how are you living your life? Are you living to be the one taken . . . or the one left behind? Yes, there is a lot of imagery about what is going on behind the scenes. And while it may not actually look quite (or even much) like John wrote it down, it is not insignificant. But if it turns us toward that future more than it turns us toward today — with or without any apparent sign that the end is upon us — have we missed the point? The purpose of the imagery is not to define details of the end, but to impress that God ultimately does fully redeem his people, and after much time an opportunity, will punish those who refuse him. If that understanding is true, then why are we wasting our time with reading the signs right rather than ensuring that we are the ones who are always ready? And while I do not see either of you doing this, why do so many focus more on whether in our resurrected bodies we can fly or do a supernatural version of "beam me up, Scottie" to get from one place to another? It seems to be an exercise in missing the point. From Daniel and on through the apocalypses of the brief period before Christ, and then on to Revelation, these writings do two things: 1) bring the end (or the culmination) of the present problems/evil forward to the present, and 2) comfort us that right does prevail. These writings were primarily during the period of exile of Israel and continued through the progression of occupiers up to Rome, then with Revelation, the understanding of the church as continually dwelling within the world, which is referred to as "in the evil one." So I never diminish Revelation and its message. The question is what message is being received? Is it a litany of triumphs over evil and streets of gold, or is it a reminder to actually have the right to be those who obtain whatever those images actually portray? That means to be living right now. Not just with white robes standing on the top of some hill or mountain because the end is near, but faithfully living day by day in the world as a citizen of the Kingdom of God. The present nation of Israel could be wiped off the earth and the truth that is contained in Revelation is not diminished. If you think otherwise, then you don't believe in much of a God. |
||||||
| 05-11-2021 07:11 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Deconstruction (a.k.a. working through doubts) Back in about 2008, I added the study of the Emerging Church movement (“ECM”) to my ongoing analysis of the teachings and practices of Nee, Lee, and the local churches. While the ECM had been around for roughly two decades, it had been mostly hidden to many people until after 2000. But by about 2009 some had already begun to write epitaphs for the movement, and by 2015 it had essentially disappeared from the landscape. While I do not want to hijack the study of Nee, Lee, and the LCs and go into a detailed description of the ECM, there was one thing that those within the ECM talked about, and that was often spoken against by those on the outside looking in. That one thing was the idea of “deconstruction” of the faith. And the idea of challenging one’s faith might seem scary if you consider the number of church participants, and even members, of groups from RCC to mainline protestant, to Evangelical, to charismatic free group that “believe” because that is what they were born into. That might even be a larger number among the evangelical end of the spectrum than is often admitted because they mostly do not bother giving their young a targeted course of learning (a catechism) that puts the core of the faith in front of them in a cohesive way. Instead, they grow up Baptist, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, etc., because that’s what their parents were. And their parents before them. So they are ripe to have a crisis of faith at some point and need to come to understand what it is that they believe. Or don’t believe. And then, rather than just deal with “doubts,” someone comes along and suggests that it should be more deliberate and gives it a name like “deconstruction.” Sounds like demolition. And if there is nothing to replace it, then it might be scary. And if too many in the church you lead go through it and end out somewhere else (or nowhere) it might mean a big problem for the financial survival of your assembly. The word seems to be counter to the idea of faith and surety. And surely some who took to deconstruct their faith ultimately ended out with none. Or one not recognizable as more than barely Christian. But there was generally seen to be a vast array of outcomes from the exercise ranging from a return to their roots, but without as much of the dogmas and folk religion, to a very different base of faith, to the discovery that they really don’t have faith. Blame it on the idea of deconstruction if you will. But with or without it, it is probably evidence that they really didn’t believe what they seemed to believe before the start of the exercise. Consider it a willful act of discovering what kind of soil they really are. Probably not the best way to think about it, but still a possible result of the exercise. “Deconstruction isn’t something that anyone just decides to do as if it is on your “to-do list somewhere between picking up the dry cleaning and walking the dog. It is simply something that happens along the way.” Something happens. There is a death in the family that seems to undermine some aspect of your faith. You lose a job. You read a passage and you suddenly wonder how they got that teaching out of it. So you begin to ask questions and the answers aren’t satisfactory. Somewhere along the way you see something that answers some of your questions and you can’t “un-see” it. But long before I “came to” the LC, I started to wonder about the teachings of the group I was born into. Was it true that everyone needed to have the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues? While I had not yet rejected it before my 18th birthday, I was no longer so certain that it was true. Then came the LC. 14+ years of it. I left with a head full of things I thought I had come to see as true. And I lived with much of that thought for about 18 more years. Then came a reading of the God Men. And The Thread of Gold. And then an introduction to the BARM, followed 3 years later by the opening of this forum. I had already managed to dismiss much of the complaints about Christianity, but I continued to keep many LC teachings bottled up inside. I was reading through some of the discussions I had with some friends here in those early days of this forum and came across this comment from a man who shortly afterward ceased to post here. Quote:
I realize that it was part of the rhetoric in the LC to say that we are just Christians willing to fellowship with all Christians. And we may have intended to mean that. But the truth is that we expected that our special and superior teachings would eventually win over so many who are “real seekers.” But as we learned those teachings, we were unaware that there was a kind of system of error built into them that even infected what was otherwise quite true. As a more obvious example, we were taught that the core tenets of the faith included the fact that the church was “on the ground.” So while we agreed with all true Christians about the actual core of the faith, we had one additional item that made true fellowship with the “others” (think ABS’s LOST) difficult and eventually impossible. Now I remain quite fond of Don Rutledge, but I think that his problem, like for many of us, is that we have retained a lot of baggage from the LC that we are unwilling to deconstruct. We are unwilling to admit that we might have been duped into believing something that was not true. We want to be able to point to those years — even decades — as truly positive. To not discover that we got excited or emotionally “high” because of something that we cannot point back to as being the truth. We are quite capable of going through a kind of “valley of the shadow of death” and even having doubts related to our faith over the suffering and death of a loved one, a period of mental illness of our own or another’s, the long-term impacts of a serious accident, or even just a lengthy period during which we do not have a sense of God’s activity in our lives. And when we come out on the other side, we may find that we have some wisdom gained. And also find that we think about things differently. We are less inclined to have tip-of-the-tongue scripture pick-me-ups for everyone else. It might even affect aspects of how we view and practice our faith. But we are unable to accept that maybe we could be tricked into following a snake oil salesman and accept his modifications of the Word of God. And admit that part of it was because we were convinced that it was superior to all the thinking of all the Christians that had gone before us. That there was so much that had been hidden from Christians for 2,000 years and was now revealed by Nee and Lee (or whoever else we might be following). If there was ever a way of thinking that is begging for serious deconstruction, it is anything that has direct or indirect links to the teachings of Nee and Lee. Even links that you don’t think are there. And one of the reasons that I have included this post in my blog rather than in the general forum is that I believe that this is important for even our general faith that has nothing to do with the LC. As you might see in my testimony (see post #86, above), I have a history that includes 18 years in the Assemblies of God, 14.5 years in the LC, 33 years in Bible churches, and now the last year mostly online, but headed in a new direction. I have hinted at that direction but will not deal with it now. Still very Christian, and consistent with so much of what I have always believed. But also different. And the reason I am arriving at this new place is that I have taken time to ask questions. Questions that got odd stares and push-back. I never questioned God, or Christ (being God born as a man, lived, died, resurrected, ascended), or the Holy Spirit. I have never questioned that salvation is by faith in Christ (and that only Christ saves us, not even the faith we need to obtain Christ does it). But I no longer believe that an understanding of substitutionary atonement (or even knowing that it exists in the manner described by evangelical theologians) is important. Not saying I don’t believe it, but that I do not believe that an understanding of or belief in it is important. I do not think that predestination, as taught by true Calvinists, is true. Yet neither is the simplistic “you can lose your salvation” of the Arminians. The verses that each relies on have contexts. I do not understand what a less-than-certain salvation might be, but I do understand that John 3:16 did not say “he who believed in me shall not perish.” It is not sufficient to consider a former state of belief as evidence of salvation. But the importance of it is not to what I think about someone else’s salvation, but how I deal with my own. From an LC perspective, I believe that in 1 Cor 3, Paul is talking about the builders, not the building, when he mentions the whole wood, hay, stubble, gold, silver, and precious stones thing. And just before that he defined who the builders were. And it mostly did not include you and me. “We (Paul Apollos, Cephas) are the builders, you (the church in Corinth) are the building.” Similarly, the “Great Commission” is not a charge to every believer. Look at the context. Now I do not say that my take on these last two means we have no part in them. But they were not simply general charges to everybody. There is a context. And whether by Lee or evangelicalism in general, we have been taught something that does not fit its context. And all the discussion about them — even that of whether you can or cannot lose your salvation — is mostly unimportant to those who are diligently obeying/following all that Christ commanded. For those, there is no worry about salvation. It doesn’t matter how predestination does or does not apply. There is no need to make your goal the New Jerusalem (see recent post in “106 things not many Christians know (but Witness Lee knows)”) — no matter what its ultimate manifestation is, you will be there. And there is no command to say it better, so a superior lexicon won’t help you. |
||||||
| 05-10-2021 07:55 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
My Avatar (repost) I also included in the "testimonies" thread an explanation for my avatar and byline (which has actually morphed over the years since, though still rooted in the original, so I will leave it as is.) originally posted 07/24/2008 - - - - My avatar and byline are related. The avatar is the album cover of To Our Children’s Children’s Children by the Moody Blues (1969). The byline is the opening lines from their album On the Threshold of a Dream (also 1969). I like the picture because it shows antiquity yet looks forward beyond the generations already alive. The byline is a reflection of myself. I think I have a good mind. I believe what I believe. But I am not deluded into thinking that I’m completely right and will not change. But for now, if I didn’t believe in my opinions, I would change them. Would you be willing to try? I will defend them, but not with a closed mind (at least as far as I am able to discern). If you hadn’t guessed that I like the Moody Blues, you weren’t thinking about it too hard. It’s mostly about the music. But I do like some of the ideas they express. Not the ones about New Age sort of stuff, but they did do a lot of introspective things that I have found insightful. The curtain rises on the sceneEver feel that way? I know I do. It may not be "Christian" but it is true. |
||||||
| 05-10-2021 07:32 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW - My Journey (repost and edited) Back on 05/02/2008, I posted my testimony in the "Introductions and Testimonies" section of the forum. So that I can make it more accessible, bring some additions together into one place, and correct a few errors in spelling and grammar, I have decided to copy them here. They follow below: - - - - While somewhat long, this is a sketch of my journey to, through, and beyond the LC. My name is Mike (as can be seen in the signature at the bottom). I’ve lived virtually my whole life in the Dallas area, being born to parents who themselves were born in Dallas. Until the middle of my senior year of high school, we attended an Assemblies of God church. During the last 2 or 3 years of that time, we had some contact with various inner-life teachers. During early high school, relatives in Florida introduced my parents to Watchman Nee. My Dad went out a bought a couple of his books and even began to try to use them as part of a Bible study he was involved in at the church. It did not receive the interest from his peers that he expected. Then, in the fall of 1972, my brother ran into another student at our high school that went to the Church in Dallas. When my Dad found out about the link between Nee and Lee, he began to investigate. We began to go to a meeting now and then. By January 1973, we severed ties to the AOG and were fully “in the church.” I will admit that from the very beginning, I was never going to be a “burning,” “ambitious to be an elder” type. (It turns out that was one of the reasons that my wife decided she might marry me.) Since our situation was a complete family joining up, the kind of extremes that often occurred in the corporate-living situations were only heard about and not experienced. I think that before I was even out of college, I had a realization that there were spiritual and scriptural truths that I was learning from the LC, but that there were some aspects of the outward practices from which I seemed to want to stay just a little bit apart. (With this sentence you can also see that I have become somewhat of a grammatical stickler despite the fact that I was only an OK English student. I don’t hold others to my standards and also know that I do not do everything “by the book.”) Someone mentioned the Revelation (I think) training recently. I recall sitting in my chair, drawing pictures of battleships — “destroying the destroyers.” Yep. I wasn’t going to be an elder. Graduated from college in 77 (four years straight through — didn’t seem that common among my LC peers). Spent about 10 months in Arlington, then moved back to Dallas. Married in 79. Moved to Irving at the end of 82. Left in about August of 87. Essentially went immediately to a Bible Church nearby and we are still there after over 20 years. The road out probably came in stages. I was bothered a little by some of the turn-it-on and turn-it-off control. The first I saw was in 73 when the “Christ v Religion” fever went through. There was a conference in Dallas. Some from other cities were waving cheerleader’s pom-poms in the meetings. Green and white — my school. It bugged me. Suddenly in one meeting, either James Barber or John Ingalls (one of those two was in the conference but I can’t remember which) rose and said about two sentences and the pom-poms disappeared along with a lot of other over-the-top stuff that had been going on. I appreciated the sanity, but the degree of the immediate following was not missed. (This is an event that I have often considered and note that it is also mentioned in “The Thread of Gold.”) Two or three years later, the first time Max R came through Dallas (no offense if you are reading this Max), my Dad commented that he knew my Dad’s name. There is nothing evil or unspiritual in finding out someone’s name, but it seemed odd to both my Dad and to me. Then came the ouster of Max and the beginning of the lawsuits. I followed the discussions with interest, but something always nagged at me about the whole business. Also during this time, I had a couple of run-ins with Gene D. (I was never sure if he was actually an elder in Dallas, but I know he was afterward in a couple of other cities, so I feel comfortable in mentioning the name at least in part.) At least one of them was essentially a random rant about nothing of value. It moved him down my respect scale. I later learned that he had done even worse to my Dad. (I’ve since learned that two other elders who were present were quite taken back by the incident, but were under a fog that made them incapable of doing anything at the time. There has been an apology made by one of them which I was glad to accept.) Then came Irving. This was the first time that I had the sense that where you were in terms of locality was somewhat at the “brothers’” discretion and not really yours. Nothing was ever said, but I got the sense that it was an accepted fact. I lived fairly East in Dallas, beyond the meeting hall but had changed jobs to a place in Irving, on the West side of the county, some 26 miles either through downtown or around the primary loop. With traffic, it was seldom less than a 45 min drive and was often much longer. (I know some will say “poor baby, 45 minutes” but when there was a church in Irving, there seemed to be no reason to put up with it.) I drove it for one month and put the house on the market and moved to Irving. We went from well-known nobodies to unknown and almost unnoticed nobodies. At this point, we were among a group of people that we mostly only knew a little from regional conferences (remember when they were regional and not just national or international?). I began to note that there were people that I knew were there but I seldom saw. Ben M, even Ray G., and many others. They were all busy proofing, typesetting, printing, and binding for the LSM. Then one day I realized that I had not seen Ben for some time. There began to be whispers, but it was essentially that he had merely left. As an aside, I note that about a year earlier we had spent a weekend in Houston to work on the presses there, so moving to Irving with the possibility of doing more was promising. I reached out to help with the publishing by proofreading a chapter in one of the books on which they were working. When I turned my work back in, I learned from the person in charge of that effort that I had made several grammatical errors according to the style handbook they were using. I later discovered that they were specifically using older rules of grammar and punctuation that had been out of vogue even in the versions used by university and professional publications for years. The smugness and certainty of this brother may not have risen to the level of an offense, but it really did bother me. After that, I decided that the printing was not for me. We spent 4-1/2 years in the Church in Irving but I have few significant memories of meetings at the hall. I realize that part of this time we even had Sunday morning meetings in homes, but that was only the last few months or so. I do recall a Saturday morning breakfast at Benson’s house with a large group of brothers. As it was ending and everyone was beginning to mill around and prepare to leave, I ended up near Benson. We exchanged a few words, and then he said something that remained in my mind for years, even after leaving the LC. He said something like “We’ve built really good fences, but the sheep are dying.” I don’t think I had necessarily identified something dying in me, but in hindsight, it was really true. I also remember the last “sermon” series that Benson gave during our time there. It was in the early stages of the new door-knocking move. While everyone was encouraged to get involved, Benson’s messages were on the going on of the soldiers and the citizens. While never clearly stated, it seemed obvious that the soldiers were the ones going door to door or doing other “ministry” work while the citizens were the ones that did not, but were providing the support (prayer, money, toilet cleaning, etc.) for the soldiers. The emphasis seemed to be that no one should feel that they were a second-class member of the body of Christ. But the reality was that all of the energies were put to the publishing and to the door knocking. It was hard to consider yourself anything but a second-class citizen if you weren’t deep into whatever the “flow” was at the time. It had always been that way to some degree. Now it was even worse. (It is possible that the peculiarities of a city with a conference center and printing presses made it more extreme.) By this time, my wife and I needed real friends, not just a bunch of “amen” friends. We needed real mentoring and shepherding. It was not to be found. You weren’t supposed to know anyone “in the flesh” so your personal problems were not welcome discussion. You were expected to call on the Lord more and go to more meetings. That would fix everything. If we had continued there, it would have fixed the date for the end of our marriage. It was not yet looming, but the early warning signs were there. One day, my wife said, “We should go try out Irving Bible Church.” It was less than a mile away. While Lee always slammed seminaries, he generally spoke somewhat highly of Dallas Theological Seminary and we knew that Bible Church ministers in our area tended to be DTS graduates. We talked back and forth about it over a couple of weeks, then just did it. Roughly August of 87, we left the LC, never to return, and went to IBC. IBC was in the midst of a transition. It had no preacher. We still were impressed by the leadership. About two months later they brought in a preacher who was (is) about 9 months younger than me. He was not quite 32. The LC distress signals with their embedded messages are still being searched out and destroyed. I found one just a few months ago. But the marriage has healed. We’ve had real fellowship with real people rather than pseudo-spiritual fellowship with ministry clones. I do not mean to insult any of the people in the LC with that statement. I was one of them too. It was not about us as much as it was about the thing into which the “ministry” turned us. The LC has remained the elephant in the room when I visit my parents, my brother, or sister (and their families). We did finally discuss it a little in the spring of 2006, but it got pushed aside for a while. I recall my sister recently saying something like “surely you believe that Bro Lee was right about [I don’t remember what now].” My response was essentially “No, I don’t.” They have essentially thought that it was the practices and not teaching that caused us to leave and stay away. The practices were probably the thing that drove us away, but it was the eyes opening to the teachings that kept us away. I notice that there is never any will to defend the “ministry” other than in “broad-brush” terms. (This seems to be true on both the BARM forum and in the personal discussion I have had recently on a couple of issues.) When I was going through my recent “aha” about one of Lee’s teachings, I pointed to the particular scriptures for my sister to read through, telling her what I had noticed. I never heard back. But they will talk over and over about some general wonderfulness of the “church-life.” I’ve only been to one LC meeting since mid-87. Unfortunately, it was my Mother’s funeral. The service was acceptable, but it was clear to me, and even somewhat clear to my sister and Dad (and probably my brother) that these people that she had been among for almost 35 years did not really know her. Even some of the almost exclusively “focus on the church-life” testimonies sounded like one of those mostly fictional movies that are loosely based on a real-life event. I probably wouldn’t have included this in my opening testimony except that this was only a little over 5 months ago and still fresh in my thoughts. I’m seldom the one to see deep things in a truly original way. But I will go over what anyone tries to feed me. I’m a bit of a “shade-tree” student of logic and reasoning and will gladly take what passes muster, but shred hollow logical fallacies passed off as truth. I also have a tendency to bring out a certain level of sarcasm that sometimes comes off not exactly as intended. I recall in the first few weeks in the LC we were having dinner with another family and I made a reference to “our atheist friend in Austin.” The sister looked at me with really big eyes until she realized I was simply making a snide remark about Madeline Murray O’Hare. For those that frequent the BARM, I am “Mike H” there. (For the newer participants, the BARM is an apologetics website out of the Philippines that for many years hosted a forum like this one that discussed many different sects and cults. The forum has long been shuttered, but there are many mentions to it in the earlier posts on this forum.) I’m not sure why I decided on a different pseudonym here, but I did. After I had set it up and it was accepted, I realized that it might be thought to mean Obi-Wan. (If I ever seem to get a lightsaber out, let me know and I will deal with it.) That was not my intention. Simply “older but wiser.” As I write this, I’m reminded of a line from “The Music Man.” The line was about the “sadder but wiser girl” — a bit odd for a guy, but the thought is accurate. If I ever bring up a line from a song or movie that you don’t get, just ask. I tend to note where others have seen what I am seeing and put it into song or movie script. It may not be spiritual, but truth is still truth. - - - - Since the previous post was back in 2008, I have decided to give some updates. In about 2011, we changed to a different Bible Church for the purpose of being able to more often see our son, daughter-in-law, and soon-to-be-born grandson. In many ways the same as the first Bible Church, but not all. Now, after 9 years of driving 15 miles one-way to church, and almost concurrent with the beginning of the pandemic, we decided that something close to home will be better. A new chapter in our spiritual lives begins. |
||||||
| 04-02-2021 07:24 PM | |||||||
| PriestlyScribe |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
P.S. |
||||||
| 04-02-2021 05:51 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Go away for a few months and the landscape has surely changed. Alt groups is gone. Probably for the best. It seems that our favorite targets — Nee and Lee — now have stand-ins who are cutting and pasting their poor work together into even worse work. And too many just buy it as if it is the chef's recommendation from the top French restaurant in town. Unfortunately, it is more like a run-down greasy spoon* about to be shut down for health violations. (* For those of you too young to appreciate "greasy spoon," it is an old term for a diner that is of dubious quality even if frequented by locals. The idea is that the grease on the spoons is indicative of the care in washing the dishes which probably spills over into the handling and preparation of the food.) I can agree that sometimes other places in Christianity are not necessarily better. Well, at least not in some ways. But for the most part, at least they are using good food and clean dishes, even if it is only Chilis or PF Chang and not the top French restaurant. |
||||||
| 02-27-2020 09:16 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
What is Unity (or Oneness)? In the same place that I found the issue concerning baggage added to salvation for my previous post, there was a discussion concerning whether the Father was in or with Christ as he experienced the process of the crucifixion. At times it went so far as to suggest that they were still there together as one when Jesus died on the cross, though that was backed away from fairly quickly in favor of a unity that only lasted until the 9th hour when it is recorded that Jesus said, “why have you forsaken me?” (And even there someone suggested that the “God” part of Jesus separated from the body which died and remained together with the Father and Spirit.) The verse that was provided to establish the unity of the Father and the Son was John 14:10 which says: Quote:
In John 17, Jesus uses the in-the-Father-and-the-Father-in-me terminology again. Here he says Quote:
Since the unity (or “une” of “triune”) is more than just this one stated aspect of the oneness of the Godhead, I do not believe that I would diminish it by suggesting that we have overstated the impact of this one aspect of their unity. Why overstated? Because it is likened to how we are in unity with God and with each other. If it is the only aspect of the unity of the Godhead and we can be one with the Godhead (and therefore with each other) in the exact same manner, then the unity of the Godhead is not as significant as we like to think. I know that my unity with each of you, though significant because it is unity in Christ and not in doctrine, does not in any way suggest that I am you or you are me. In other words, if “I in you and you in me” can be applied to the unity between humans who are believers in Christ, then it cannot in any way be used to imply that the Father and the Son are “simply” the same (with or without the word “person” attached). If it seems that I have diminished some cherished doctrine of the oneness of the Godhead, do not fear. The unity of God does not rely on a single construct of terms. But the implication on unity among believers is significant. We are connected through this same “I in you and you in me” kind of unity as the Father and Son are. The wording in John 17 does not clearly say it is directly between you and me, but because of our unity with Christ and the Father in this manner. Because of this, I can safely say that the unity of believers is NOT:
While there is surely a kind of unity among those who hold to one particular item in this list (among other possibilities), it is not Christian unity, but a unity of preference. Anyone who includes or excludes from the household of faith based on these does not understand Christian unity. |
||||||
| 02-27-2020 09:01 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
How Much Baggage on Salvation? I occasionally go back and read through some of the more lengthy threads to see how the discussions progressed. Sometimes I find a comment or even side discussion that does not get much if any discussion. Or that is never brought to a reasonable conclusion. I was reading through a thread from back in early 2017 titled “Lee’s Trinity” and came upon the following in a reply: Quote:
You will find discourses by Paul in which he corrects various miss-assumptions by those in the places he writes to. Some think you need more to really be saved. Paul doesn’t say that they are unsaved because of that incorrect thought. He only refers to the foolishness of thinking it. This reminded me of a survey that an outfit called Ligonier does every couple of years on the state of Christianity. Ligonier was founded by RC Sproul who was the pastor for many years at a church in Florida with one of the most comprehensive (and Calvinist) statements of faith of any church I have ever seen. The most recent questionnaires (2014, 2016, 2018) include, among others, variations on the following three statements to which the respondent answers their level of agreement or disagreement:
On the first question, while it is true that the only requirement for salvation is trust (belief) in Christ, the qualifier “alone” is not found, and to the extent that it applies, there is nothing that says that this faith must be entirely singular to be effective. Reading this statement as written would seem to insist that someone who trusts in Christ for their salvation would be presumed to be unsaved if they had any inkling that something additional that they do or believe is involved in the process — including the belief that it was their own belief that brought that salvation (see the second question). It is true that faith is the only thing that saves, but other things done, undertaken, or even believed are never stated as disqualifiers simply because they are not required. I will concede tat if any additional belief or action evidences that they are trusting in something that is called Christ but is not, then that is entirely different. But the only requirement was that upon hearing and understanding the gospel, a person believed in Christ as the one who could/would save them. So we are not talking about teaching Buddha but inserting “Christ” in the place of “Buddha.” That “Christ” is clearly not the Christ in which we believe. But simply thinking that you also need to be circumcised did not negate your salvation. It only demonstrated that you remained (voluntarily) under bondage to the law. And adding to this argument, Paul spent a bit of time arguing against the Judaizers, eventually going to Jerusalem to take the issue up with the other apostles. But at no point was it suggested that it was unsaved persons who were pushing adherence to the law. Instead, it was insiders — believers — whether on their own or as intended emissaries from the church in Jerusalem. Otherwise, the church would have had no reason to even take up the issue. And still later, we hear of “how many” there were in Jerusalem who were believers yet still zealous for the law. No one suggested that they were unsaved, or that there was a two-tiered system whereby Gentiles didn’t have to obey the Jewish laws (or were even forbidden to do so because that violated some “Christ alone” edict) and Jews had to, or were at least permitted to. The second question is classic Calvinism in which even being saved is predestined and God (the Holy Spirit) must cause you to seek and believe before you can seek or believe. In other words, not even a will to do so. Just absolute determinism. Paul argued that nature pointed to God and caused everyone to have some notion of God. If we want to call this the influence of the Holy Spirit, that is fine. But that obviously didn’t turn everyone into a believer, so it is not what the Calvinists are talking about. (The survey includes self-identified demographics, including whether the respondent is Evangelical. At the end of this post, I have included the criteria by which they would determine whether a person is Evangelical. While the entire write-up on the questionnaire probably specifies, it is not clear whether the identification as Evangelical is based on the self-designation of the respondent or the determination of the surveyors based on answers to the survey. I suspect it is the former. But despite the fact that many groups that are not Calvinist are correctly included as Evangelical, the questionnaire is written from a strictly Calvinist perspective, and refers to answers that are more Arminian in character as heretical.) The third question is read by the surveyors as indicating that anyone who responds other than “strongly disagree” means some amount of belief in an action of the “penitent” in receiving salvation, and therefore is heretical. I at least somewhat agree with the Arminian position on this one. I do not believe that my initiative to seek God saves me, but that I cannot receive salvation if I do not believe, therefore I must do something. Still, no matter what I do — whether simply believe or even undertake some additional task (something I do not believe) — it is only the saving work of Christ that saves me, therefore I am not relying on myself in any way for salvation. Christ alone undertook the only activity that causes salvation. But to receive it, I must be one of those “whosoever will may come.” The gift is there for the taking, and I must take it. But the taking does not save me. What Christ did saves me. But the Calvinist position is that I cannot even seek after God if He does not actively move me to do so, thereby negating my ability to take any initiative to even seek to find God. Therefore “whosoever believes in me” becomes “whosoever I cause to believe in me.” This is a core difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. Both believe that only the work of Christ actually saves. Yet when you listen to the Calvinist talk about it, they assert that the Arminian is claiming that their actions are part of what saves them. But it is not true. The Arminian does not pretend that believing saves them, rather that it is the step required to take the gift of the sacrifice that only Christ can, and has, made for our redemption. Christ saves us, but we must accept it as the gift that it is. But even if the Calvinists are right about the Arminians, what is the requirement for salvation? Belief in Christ for the forgiveness of sins? Are there actually any other stipulations? I know that Paul stated that works do not save you. But did he ever state that if you think works save you that your belief in Christ is made null and void? He told the Galatian believers that adding in old Jewish ritual laws caused them to live under the law rather than under grace. But was that because the grace of God was removed (or never granted) or because they were ignoring the grace they had received and were instead acting as if the law was necessary? Paul didn’t say they were unsaved. He wrote a letter to them and he didn’t write his letters to unbelievers. So . . . .
I look back at the origins of the Protestant reformation and (ignoring the issues surrounding abuses of the clergy, like indulgences) find Luther as trying to help the RCC faithful realize that they were saved, not trying to help them become saved. He was much more generous with those who came and did the liturgy each week, praying, repenting, and partaking of the Lord’s table. Yes, the kind of penance undertaken after their confession may have been a kind of “work” that was not effective for salvation, or even for the forgiveness of the week’s sin, but did it deny them status as believers in Christ? . . . . Definition of Evangelical in Ligonier survey: Evangelicals were defined as people who strongly agreed with the following four statements:
My take: #1: Sort of true. Christ is the Word and the highest authority. The Bible is the written word which reveals God/Christ, but requires interpretation, insight, inspiration, etc., and therefore cannot simply be the highest because multiple conclusions can be (and often are) reached from its pages. #2: There are gifts given to the church and not all have the same gift/calling. We are all called to be ready if asked, but to engage in what a writer called the “wretched urgency” of personal evangelism is not a gift/calling of every believer. There is no support for a general charge to everyone. #3: Absolutely correct. The only thing that saves is Jesus' death on the cross. #4: There's that “alone” criteria again. I do not believe that any lack of complete and correct understanding, or belief that our faith is required as a step to receive it denies salvation. That is part of what that “alone” is refusing and I disagree. And despite writing for so long, I probably still didn't say something quite right. |
||||||
| 12-17-2019 09:08 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Christmas This is one of those things that Lee used to rail on so thoroughly. He had everyone disdaining it completely. Some of us did manage to slip away from Christmas eve conferences (and eventually the trainings if you were in Anaheim or Irving) to have a late time with family. But never talked about it with any of the “saints.” Hard to understand how “saints” could be such a condemning bunch of people. But it is hard to say a lot in a positive way about a heavily secular holiday in which you are encouraged to spend more money than you should so that you can “give” to others, while buried in songs of the season (Winter more than Christmas) and parties that tend to be more about obnoxiousness than anything else. In 2018, my younger son texted everyone about a new challenge. The last one to hear “Simply Having a Wonderful Christmas Time” would be the winner. The song is happy and upbeat, is well-done, and is fitting (in the secular sense) even if a bit trite. But it has been so overplayed that avoiding it as much as possible has become a thing. Like avoiding “My Heart Will Go On” from the movie Titanic (also very overplayed). In 2018 I won. This year I was not so lucky and was out before Thanksgiving. I was in the car and changed stations on the radio to a little-selected progressive rock station that was (unknown to me) undergoing a transformation and just playing Christmas/seasonal music until January while they make the transition. And there it was. I will agree that it is probably unlikely that Caesar would send the Roman world on journeys during the colder part of the year, but not impossible. And all of the secular hoopla does drown out the impact of a poor Jewish couple having a baby while away from home, and it would appear away from any significant family since there was nowhere to stay besides the stable. But it seems that the whole "assault on Christmas" mantra of late is just a more extreme example of Evangelical/fundamental Christianity being anything other than loving of their neighbors. Just proof that we are more interested in making the world behave like good Christians while the allegedly good Christian behave like Banana republic despots or Roman jailers. (BTW, I have always been part of groups that are legitimately Evangelical — and sometimes a little fundamentalist. But it is wearing on me. I am beginning to take a look at the idea of at least spending part of my worship time in an Anglican or Lutheran assembly. Go figure. It is not about doctrines, but about practice. Evangelicals don’t practice — they mainly blunder along.) For me, the hoopla of Christmas is too much. But the core of the Christian celebration is worthy of keeping. Probably needs to be more like the Anglican/Lutheran/RCC traditions where there is Advent for four weeks, then Christmas comes. Not a whole lot of Christmas for 4 weeks or more (or starting in October like some department stores). Low-ley the decorations. Forgo the “season” songs in favor of those that speak to the hope of the coming Messiah, and the wonder of his arrival. Remember that there was no hoopla then. Yes, a few shepherds got quite a display — briefly. But they were the only ones. Bethlehem didn’t know. Jerusalem didn’t know. A Christmas Eve service with scripture concerning the need for the Messiah, the prophecies of his coming, and the story of his arrival, coupled with hymns that speak to each part. The choir (if there is one) primarily to support the congregational singing. No orchestra. Ditch the praise band. Go unplugged — piano, maybe an acoustic guitar, violin if there is a member who plays, maybe an organ if desired. None of the trite songs of donkeys, reindeer, snow, camels, ships, trees, or even drummers. A short sermon/homily speaking of the darkness into which this light is born, and the birth of that life in each of us. And a quiet exit as we consider the importance of this one birth to the world — even the world that does not believe. Remember, at one point the Kingdom was likened to leaven placed into a lump of dough until the whole was leavened. No, the leaven was not the world, but the kingdom. It does not make the whole world “Christian,” but it cannot avoid the impact of that “leaven.” Peace on earth! |
||||||
| 10-01-2019 08:46 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
If Necessary, Use Words Always preach the gospel; if necessary, use words. Attributed to Francis of Assisi. And someone recently suggested he might not have ever actually said it. Said he was more like a street-corner evangelist in his day. The guy who said that may have been correct. But he may have assumed that since FofA was a street evangelist that he would never have given the rest of us the option to be otherwise. (This guy surely thought that should be the case.) But I recall that Paul said that gifts were given to the church and that we didn’t all get everything or the same thing. And even if you want to say that evangelism is not that kind of gift, or that it is given to everybody, then Paul sort of kicked that one when he said that there are SOME evangelists (and apostles, prophets, shepherds and teachers) given to the church. But no matter who said that “use words if necessary” thing, our lives should be a constant preaching of the gospel through the character of our living — our overt living of loving neighbor as self. It should drip off our fingertips. It should make the checkout line a little less vexing to those around us. It should hide the smell of exhaust fumes on the highway. (Don’t over-think my hyperbole.) All without saying one “preach the gospel” kind of thing. If we can’t do that, we may be damaging any witness others may have through speaking. Yet the sermons we hear every week tend to be about piling on knowledge of things about God, not really so much about knowing the God that our lives are supposed to reflect (remember, the image of God). We clamor for the truth. But too often it is the truth of propositions. I do not have faith in propositions. We are so quick to love grace because it covers our sins, but have nothing but disdain for anything that we DO righteously because it is “just works.” But when we take those kinds of positions, I am not sure that we should be thinking about the prospect of “using words.” If we haven’t given someone a reason to ask, then we probably live in a manner that would argue against any words we could use. I’m preaching to me too. Rather than a 30+ minute, seminary-lecture-quality sermon on the (fill-in the blank with some esoteric topic), we would be better off with a 15-20 minute sermon (homily?) using the life of Christ as an example of how we should be living our ordinary life. That directs us to forget a summer missions trip and instead find out what it means to actually set our minds on the Spirit so that we actually fulfill the righteousness of the law. Once the people have seen something exemplary in our lives, they may want to hear something. And we may decide that it is better that they “come and see” (or hear) someone else rather than feel obligated to be everything to them. I am surely not everything to anyone. But Jesus is. |
||||||
| 05-06-2019 11:04 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Back in late 2016, Nell started a thread introducing a book by Jane Anderson that basically takes on the alleged favor of the Bible for subjugation of women. The thread lasted for just over 225 posts. Fairly quickly, the discussion began to center around the results of the curse as described in Genesis 3. (I do not link that thread here because it does no good to resurrect some of the acrimony that went on there.) (I confess that I found problems with the arguments made on both sides, noting that the language being put forward by both the underlying sources and of Jane’s book were sometimes more inflammatory than instructive, and at the same time seeing that what came from those who supported the status quo was as bad or worse. While I support the direction of the book (both then and now), there just seemed to be something missing.During the past couple of weeks I read something that gave (to me) a better perspective. It suggests that the whole account from Genesis 3, verses 14 through 19, is not a prescription for how to be godly or how God wanted things to be. It is a description of all that would be wrong as a result of the disobedience that had just occurred. It was not a statement that it should be this way, but that it was just going to be this way. Paraphrasing the essence of two of the curses included could go something like the following: “Man, expect that putting food on the table will be difficult.” “Woman, you are going to want a man and since he’s got you, he is going to be a problem for you.” Further, those short statements were not the details, but were very summary and were relevant to life as it was at the time it was written. It was written when virtually everything was agriculture and the agricultural work was performed primarily by the men while the household was handled primarily by the woman. It makes no reference to earning a paycheck from unrighteous bosses, but such bosses are surely a result of the fall. Some think that it stands opposed to today’s “me too” movement. But the fact that there is such a movement is proof that the curse of the fall is very pervasive. It might be argued that such a movement among “heathen” is irrelevant since they have no claim upon which to rise above the curse. But to say that is to make a lie of any claim to loving neighbor as you love yourself. And that is the important thing here. God was not establishing a way for things to be. He merely described the result of the fall. And if it is a result of the fall, then it is not “God’s ordained way.” To the extent that there is any such “ordained way,” it is found in the previous chapter when man and woman were united and became “one flesh.” And it is found in the words of Ephesians when it says that we are all to be in subjection to each other, including both wife to husband and husband to wife. And when it says that we are all of one status in Christ — not rich or poor, barbarian or cultured, slave or free, male of female . . . . The curse is not what was ordained in the making of mankind. And if the birth, life, death (sacrifice), and resurrection of Christ is to free us from the curse, then those of us who claim faith in Christ should at least find ourselves on a journey (in this life) back to our original calling. One that had no curse. To demand the continuance of any part of the curse is to deny the fullness of the work of Christ. To fail at achieving that ultimate freedom should only be evidence that we remain imperfect — in this life. It is not because it is God’s ordained way. Note: Comments should be either brief or undertaken in the open forum, not within my private blog. |
||||||
| 11-18-2018 09:20 PM | |||||||
| Trapped |
Re: OBW's Blog I started reading The Economy of God yesterday to see what you meant about chapter 1. WOW! No wonder I had such a hard time trying to read it as a young person. I mean the dude just makes a sweeping statement and doesn't back it up AT ALL. I'm on chapter 3 now and I just had to laugh at this: "The last verse of 2 Timothy definitely states that Christ is in our spirit. “The Lord be with your spirit” (4:22)." NOPE it states the Lord is WITH our spirit as plain as day!!!! Do you know prepositions, bro!?!? And every other translation says "with" too. (I'm not commenting on whether or not the Lord is in our spirit.....just that the example for Lee's "definitely states" is then totally not definitely stated). It's amazing how much falls apart when you read his stuff with eyes wide open. |
||||||
| 11-18-2018 12:03 AM | |||||||
| Trapped |
Re: OBW's Blog Just ventured into the Blogosphere for the first time today. Your blog posts are phenomenal. Thanks for taking the time to write them. |
||||||
| 03-15-2017 09:48 AM | |||||||
| leastofthese |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
|
||||||
| 03-15-2017 08:59 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Back in May, 2014, some unregistered person posted the following Quote:
While I did not want to start a drawn-out discussion within the blog, I always wondered where they got the "woah!" reaction. I looked several posts back and couldn't find it. Must have been way back and the person was just reading through and decided to post. It would have been nice to know what had sparked the question. The other thing I always wondered was whether, after asking the question, they even read the response. It clearly didn't result in a response. Maybe I should be deluded into thinking I helped someone. But more and more I think that would be wishful thinking. |
||||||
| 01-16-2017 04:10 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog The recent participation by at least two current LRC members has made it more clear that this forum cannot go away, but at the same time, that the blindness of so many in the LRC is great. The tales and teachings of Lee are taken as fact. Scripture is presumed to mean what Lee said it meant. It is irrelevant that you would never come to that conclusion without being pushed there by someone claiming special knowledge (and that would be Lee). Saying something means a particular thing is just accepted without a thought. Declaring that a church with a name is an abomination is accepted as scripturally sound fact. Claiming to be the home of oneness while singing "Overcome, Overcome, Overcome degraded Christianity!!" is never seen as an oxymoron. Using a metaphor to prove a position is not seen as a form of begging the question. I have a hard time not simply coming unglued at the fact that they simply say something "is" because that is how they read it. Not that the words actually say, but that they had decided to infer into what is said and insist that their inference is simply what was meant. No room for discussion or disagreement. Disagreement means "degraded Christianity!!" With dogma like that, it is no wonder they don't ever address the reasons to dismiss their positions. They just restate them. And bring up metaphors and stories as if something made up that is unrelated to the issue at hand is the reason that they are right. Someone once referred to this kind of thinking as illogic in the service of attempts at reason. (It cannot be in the service of reason because reason rejects illogic.) I know that someone will trot out the "foolishness to those who don't believe" line, or something like it. But that statement was not suggesting that what the scripture actually says can be set aside and manhandled into something that doesn't resemble what it says because foolishness is OK. It simply says that what the scripture does say (not what it doesn't say) may not be reasonable to those who do not believe. But it is not claimed to mean something other than what it says. Except by Lee and the LRC. And probably a few other strange sects. |
||||||
| 09-08-2016 03:36 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
I'm reminded of someone who decided to write "Jesus is Lord" on bathroom stall walls at the local Community College. Got the message out there. But spoke poorly of the "speaker." And in that, undermined some of the impact of getting the message out there. We have to live both normal and at least somewhat exemplary before we often get the opportunity to speak. Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words. If our only hope of evangelizing is in the words, then we should reexamine our lives. And our gospel. |
||||||
| 06-26-2015 02:33 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Losing interest. I had some heavy days at work, coupled with a seriously painful knee and didn't visit for a couple of weeks. Then just couldn't get excited about what is going on. I am still an anti-LCM type. But my need for vocalizing it is diminishing. And the discussions tend to lean too heavily on the environment as it currently is and not on the things that I have some knowledge of (the past and the doctrines/teachings). I may not be disappearing as completely as some others have (SpeakersCorner comes to mind), but then I didn't plan this anyway. It is just happening. |
||||||
| 01-09-2015 03:53 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Discussions of Late If you think this is too long, don't read it. If you think I an too opinionated (like you are not) then don't read it. If you don't like the things I say in it and just want to complain about the fact that I said them, then stop reading at that point. This is my blog, not a discussion board, so I ask that other than some short comment (if you care to leave one) if there is anything you really want to discuss, either put it in the forum in the appropriate place, or send me a PM. Now, if you care to, proceed at your own risk. . . . . I was recently reading a post on a favorite blog and the writer was commiserating about how hard it is to be vulnerable. That is such a popular thought these days — being vulnerable. His conclusion was that true vulnerability is only achieved within a rather close group and not with much larger groups or the world at large. He started his discussion talking about the many groups of people that he knows, and how each of those groups do not really know the people in the other group. He listed:
But he noted at one point “I made what I thought was a fairly innocent and humorous political comment which resulted (after much discussion) in a very old acquaintance unfriending me.” Not the result he expected or wanted. Not here to discuss vulnerability, but the interactions among mostly unknowns with a common link (even though the link is different for those on the inside v those on the outside of that link). We claim to be here to discuss the system that calls itself the Lord’s recovery (Recovery) and the local churches (Local Churches). Because we disagree on whether there is such a thing as the Lord’s recovery, and the term “local church” has meaning for many that is much different from what those in the “Lord’s recover” mean by it, many have taken to using the term “Lord’s recover church” or “LRC” to specify that group. It is not meant to be derogatory, although since the group claims that it has no name, it generally takes offense at some level at any attempt to put a name on it. But the prospect of continually saying something like “the group that says it stands as the church in the city” just is not acceptable, and the acronym “TGTSISATCITC” is almost like saying supercalifragilisticespiallidocious. So LRC it is. There is an aspect of our interactions that certain ones, especially UntoHim, like to keep as fully civil and not at odds. And I agree with the premise. However, since we are discussing the errors of certain teachers that we are becoming clearer and clearer were not correct in their theology (being nice about it), some will always take exception to the very fact of saying that as being derogatory. And in a sense it is. But if it is true, then maybe that is just life. But even among us who have left the organization and are finding ourselves further and further from that system, we continue to discover things that we hold to that are not necessarily healthy. But we just can’t see them. I have found that over the several years I have been involved that I have realized that the LRC is not just a sound, evangelical group with a couple of funny doctrines of questionable applicability that I could consider returning to if other issues improve, but is a system that is so inundated with error that many very good Christians there are being fooled into believing things that may actually be spiritually harmful Now if you wanted to hear something derogatory, there it is. But that is the way it is in such discussion. But to have a real discussion, you need to be willing to provide evidence, support, etc., for what you say. That does not mean that everyone will like your evidence, or the conclusions you draw from it. And sometimes, in the midst of discussing one thing, evidence, support, etc., is provided that assumes something that is not necessarily assumable. So there often is a question about the validity of the assumption. The result is a side discussion. Lately there has been a tendency to dislike side discussion. Now I understand that in a context in which there is simply a testimony being given. That should be true in the Introductions and Testimonies section. But too often the group includes topics rather than just testimonies and introductions. At that point, the banner over the thread becomes irrelevant. So asking a question or challenging something that is placed in such a thread should not be treated as off limits because it is a testimony thread. It isn’t. It is a discussion of a topic. And the discussion has brought up additional topics that affect the analysis of the original topic. Surely there are times when a more complete discussion of an otherwise side issue is required and a new thread for it is warranted. But not always. If someone includes in their post that “X is Y because of God’s economy,” I would think that a challenge to the overall statement, and maybe a question as to what they think God’s economy is that it could have such impact is warranted. And maybe even a bit of a discussion on that. If the notion of taking it to another thread occurs about the time that you realize the discussion is dying out, then starting the new thread is probably a waste of time. And it separates the information that could be relevant to understanding the rest of the current thread from it, so always starting a new thread is not necessarily the best thing to do. And disagreement needs to be met with civility. If I disagree with something I read, I should be able to challenge the premise. It is not personal. It is about the statement, thought, or reasoning. And many, like me, are open to considering good evidence that something we had not considered before could be right. If we didn’t we would probably all be still in the LRC, or desperately trying to get back in. Or we would at least just think that its teachings are benign and not worth discussing. I don’t think the same as I did in late 2005 when I found the Berean forum, which was different from 2007 when I realized that 1 Cor 3 (talking about wood hay and stubble) was talking about the teachers, not the church members), which was different from what I thought in 2009 or so when I realized that Nee used the same illogic as Lee did (such as in The Economy of God) to set up many of his works, and that his verses too often did not actually support, or even have anything to do with, his assertions (The Spiritual Man, Authority and Submission, Further Talks on the Church, etc.). In the midst of all of that, I learned something about Daystar and Phillip Lee, and realized that W Lee was everything that Paul warned against. And my position with respect to Lee and his teachings is now based upon that discovery. (And you do not have to agree with my assessment on that. But I will try to persuade you.) Have I found everything that I think is still hanging on buried in the garlic of the LRC? Probably not. Will I find it by lashing out every time someone sees old LRC stuff that they think has no support still hanging on me? No. So I propose that rather than stifling discussion, we embrace it. Yes, there should be some rules. I agree that most threads should not be required to defend the Bible as the Word of God. Or Jesus as God. Without hiding it, we can have those discussions somewhere else, not in the midst of the regular postings. But sidebars should not be simply banned. And if we want to protect the sanctity of introductions and testimonies, then be sure that is all they are. Once they are something else, then you can’t use the overall topic to put lipstick on a pig. (Bad metaphor, but the intent is to say that if it is not simply a testimony or introduction, it is a discussion no matter where you put it.) And we all need to be a little toughened to have discussions. Everyone is not going to always agree. It is not about you/me personally (unless they make it so). It is about the thing being discussed. Look at what you said and what the response was. If it is that you said something you didn’t intend to, fix it. If you truly disagree, then provide the reasons that you disagree. Someone may learn something from the interchange, even if the two (or more) that engage in it remain where they were. That is how my mind changed on so many things over the past nearly 10 years. Lots more I could say. But ss I am famous for going long (the little bells broke hours ago), this post is now very long. |
||||||
| 09-26-2014 03:20 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Something I recently read that I don't know what to do with. I don't know whether to agree with it, curse it, consider it to have some validity, laugh at it, or cry because of it. Here it is: Quote:
|
||||||
| 05-05-2014 04:28 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Thanks for pointing to the forum in general. But I will actually take this on as it is the common response once we have been pickled with Lee's teachings. 1 Cor 15:45 does not speak about the Holy Spirit. That is the most important thing to know about the verse. This verse is in the midst of a discussion about the kind of body that believers will receive when they are resurrected. So Paul turns to the only example that he can point to in a solid way — Jesus. He is speaking of the physical body that Jesus had after resurrection. And there is no way to describe that body as simply physical since it was not always visible, and could move through solid walls and locked doors. So Paul referred to it as "spiritual." Sort of a no-brainer, since the Son is part of the Godhead and God is spirit. So Jesus is spirit. That is different from declaring that Jesus is the Holy Spirit. I know that Lee strongly declared that there can be only one spirit that gives life. But he was wrong. Jesus gives life and he became "A" spirit. Not the Holy Spirit. I think that it is also provable that the Father can give life. And he is also spirit. BTW. The Holy Spirit is also spirit. Seems like a no-brainer. Unless you are Lee or are under his spell (and I used to be). He is equivocating between "sprit" and "Sprit." The word "spirit" has many meanings. Among them is the idea of a state of being that is not simply physical. And God is spirit. All of Him — Father, Son, and Spirit. It just happens that one of those three has a name that is the same word — Spirit. That does not cause the Spirit to subsume all aspects of "spirit" but rather to simply be one part of the Trinity. Your question is phrased in the words of the Lee/LSM/LRC lexicon. "The Life-Giving Spirit" is a code word for this singular thing that is the Holy Spirit. But this verse does not say that. It says that the last Adam became "A" quickening (life-giving) spirit. Jesus surely gives life. That does not make him the Holy Spirit. It simply acknowledges the truth that Jesus has this different body — a spiritual body — and he does give life. Besides, if you buy Lee's version of the verse, then you have to assume that Paul is busy talking about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the Trinity other than to consider the body that Jesus received in resurrection. Then suddenly, in the middle of that discussion, Paul had a serious bout of ADHD, shouted "squirrel" and rambled on about how Jesus became the Holy Spirit (without ever actually saying those words) then just as suddenly returned to the discussion he had been carrying on before. In short, Lee demanded that "spirit" can only be the "Holy Spirit" — and that is just plain wrong. So the answer to your question is "Christ did not become the Life-Giving Spirit" according to 1 Cor 15:45. At least not in the way that Lee meant it. He did receive a spiritual body in resurrection. But that did not cause Jesus to morph over and become the Holy Spirit. That is not supported by this or any other verse in scripture. |
||||||
| 05-05-2014 07:32 AM | |||||||
| UntoHim |
Re: OBW's Blog To Unregistered, OBW is certainly free to comment on your post here, but I think there may be numerous threads out in the open forum where we have discussed the LC's teaching regarding the oneness of God. Thanks |
||||||
| 05-05-2014 01:19 AM | |||||||
| Unregistered |
Re: OBW's Blog Woah! @ (OBW) Did Christ "become" or not "become" the Life-Giving Spirit according to 1 Cor 15:45? I think I would love to hear your understanding on the Oneness of God... |
||||||
| 03-18-2014 05:10 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
Similarly, if someone decides to rent out a room in their house, they should be free to discriminate concerning who is selected without interference. Some will then ask where is the line between an acceptable bigotry and an unacceptable one. My answer is that it probably needs guidelines. But in the case of a very small business, there should not be such extreme requirements of inclusion, especially when it runs against the owner's moral standards. I would probably grant more leeway to larger businesses, but I understand that there become problems, especially if we simply allow it to get to where anyone can simply exclude anyone for any reason (although that is the good Libertarian position — and I am not quite one of those). In all, I have less angst about those double-standard laws because while they are secular in source, they actually legislate on others (including non-Christians) the kind of love for our fellow man that we really ought to have. But it is the legislating it onto those who would otherwise not choose it that concerns me that the very law's imposition is contrary to the Christian requirement of love for your neighbor. And that is why my position is somewhat vacillating on the subject. But it is also why I am generally opposed to imposition of Christian morality through legislation. It is too often provided as an unloving solution to forcing people to behave as if they were already good Christians. Funny, if they come in the door of the church, we sing "Just As I Am" and invite them to come to Jesus without changing first. But outside the doors, we are busy making sure they change outwardly even if they don't from the inside. I understand the issue of protection of [fill-in-the-blank — unborn, sanctity of marriage, etc.], but there are two sides to the issue in all cases. There is an aspect in which we fight to protect the unborn and in the process curse those who for a variety of reasons feel that they cannot find a way to go forward with a child. Don't argue about the poor reasons. I agree. But that does not make it any less weighty to the one facing it. We are often totally insensitive to them. And they are alive and here to deal with. (In other words, we have chosen to deal with the issue by cursing at those we can see to protect those we can't. Not saying that is entirely wrong. But at some level it just may be.) Way more complicated than just saving the unborn. That is important. What about saving those who have already taken that path? What about having a position that does not continually cast them simply as evil-doers and murderers? And I am probably preaching to the choir. |
||||||
| 03-17-2014 06:30 PM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
|
||||||
| 03-17-2014 02:28 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog I don't mind a certain amount of politics. It is a topic I opine upon often (in other circles). Ohio: Without taking a side in the liberal v conservative debate, you are forgetting that the liberal position could be entirely valid despite the corruption and lying of the current administration. I am fond of pointing out that I despise the attitudes and general meanness displayed by so many of the "spokesmen" for conservative positions that I like (exactly or at least generally). In a different way, I agree with awareness. Both sides have hypocrites. Both sides have corruption. And while mostly a conservative, I am getting more and more disgusted at the push-back at virtually any kind of liberal position that gets into the areas of biblical "justice" yet are generally insisting that it is not the church's job to do such things. They refuse the command of God for themselves, and then fight against anyone else taking it over for them. Fortunately, many evangelical and fundamental churches are beginning to see the error of their "no works - let the liberals do it" position on the poor, homeless, orphan, widows, etc. But not all. And when you read the rhetoric of the most vocal conservatives, they would simply tell the poor to get a job. Well they passed a law in '64No. I really don't like the idea that so much of what goes into welfare of one sort or another is demanded by those who have plenty and would rather that the "taking" get spread around among those who don't have as much. But I also would say that such things as Social Security should have been converted to true welfare years ago with a long transition for those who are already some years closer to retirement. It would have provided something for those who truly have too little while taking less from the rest. Then we could invest the difference as we see fit. I don't believe in the levels of entitlement that have been developed, but I believe that some kind of societal welfare is both inevitable and reasonable. Just wish it could happen without a burdensome bureaucracy that takes more for itself than gets through to those in need. |
||||||
| 03-16-2014 09:26 AM | |||||||
| awareness |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
|
||||||
| 03-16-2014 09:04 AM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
Paul sided with the Pharisees because they believed in the resurrection from the dead. Not sure OBW wants this in his blog though. |
||||||
| 03-16-2014 08:03 AM | |||||||
| awareness |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
|
||||||
| 03-15-2014 07:25 PM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
|
||||||
| 03-15-2014 04:38 PM | |||||||
| awareness |
Re: OBW's Blog Terry, OBW, & all ... Quote:
Quote:
But I can speak to two brothers I know that have remained, or gone back, into the local church. One, that I've known for decades, actually both, pretty much admits he stays in for social reasons. He says he goes to conferences and elders meetings to meet brothers and sisters he hasn't seen in awhile. When asked what was spoken about at a recent elders meeting he attended he said, "I don't know. I don't listen." When asked directly why he stays in he said, with a laugh, "For the food." LoL The other brother doesn't want to talk about anything concerning Lee or local church history. He's staying in for what I'd call psychological/dependency concerns. He went back into the local church. And then got so many DUI's he was on house arrest. The brothers told him they couldn't help him with his alcoholism. That he needed to go to AA or some other treatment program. Why is he staying in? Obviously, for emotional psychological issues. He probably needs a shrink ... prolly both of them could use one. And sometimes, with some, they themselves don't know why they stay in. It's become a habit ... like an opiate of the masses. |
||||||
| 03-15-2014 08:20 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Red or Blue. Will You Remain in the Matrix? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Every time we soften up on the system because the underlying basics are clearly orthodox, we justify the system that traps people in serious error and even psychological danger and damage. The quote from Lee concerning Fermentation says it all. There is no hiding from the gross immorality that was PL. And there is no hiding from the fact that Lee had PL deep in his ministry since the 70s. And was warned twice of the things he was doing — not only in private, but on the very premises of the LSM's offices. Both events ultimately ended with the ouster of an otherwise close associate of Lee and a story fabricated to justify the ouster. In the second instance, Lee went so far as to brag about how thoroughly he had verified the "facts" that were published in Fermentation. That should have been enough for him to receive the boot by all of the churches. But the true facts were hidden. And it was aided by younger ones that saw themselves as the ones to succeed Lee. And the way that the rest of the garbage teachings are packaged as something so special, all you get is the picture painted by Terry. Gung ho with your eyes closed and your ears plugged or just stay home. I know a couple in this area who went through many years in the same condition. Probably many others as well. My point in this is that the LRC is not healthy. Not as an institution and not as a place to be. It is like reading the nutrition label on the worst junk food you can imagine, finding one or two ingredients that are, by themselves, healthy, and deciding that a diet of nothing but that is a good thing. The truth is that many should not even consume it as an occasional splurge. But to make it your entire diet is absolutely absurd. Some will argue that there are no other teachers or writers who are perfectly correct. And I will agree. But most of them are willing to admit that they don't have it all down correctly. Of course, if they knew where they were wrong they would fix it. But in the case of Nee, Lee, the LRM, and the LRC, they have no desire to fix anything even though the parts that are OK are not what they really care about. That is the problem. The parts that they care about are the problem. Their emphasis is not only questionable . . . it is just plain wrong. Their emphasis is not on God has a purpose greater than salvation. It is on God has a purpose to build a church whose "ground" on political boundaries. They have determined that where you put the foundation is of first importance. You don't just have a foundation of Christ. It must be laid on certain ground. And that ground is decided by secular governments. Do the analysis on any of their special teachings. How many of their special teachings are sound and useful and how many are enslaving people who want to be faithful to Christ to a system of a self-elected MOTA? The Pope at least does not elect himself. And can a system that is so steeped in garbage teachings of the leader of a personality cult ever withstand the positional demise of that leader? Even years after his death? Are there too many problems that unraveling Lee and the LSM will destroy the fabric of the LRC? Is the fabric of the LRC, in total, the false teachings of Nee and Lee? Without them, is there an LRC? Is the very idea of "recovery" lost? Is the basis for their separate meeting gone? Will they wander like people who don't take the red pill. Who stay in their version of the Matrix. |
||||||
| 02-15-2014 04:36 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
And I found that in some way, as this personal, subjective, constructed experiential reality made me unique, and not a fundamentalist drone, so also could I respect that all those people out there were not me. All of them had their own histories, experiences, thoughts, feelings, reasonings, and understandings. I began to sense and respect the uniqueness of each person and stopped despising them for not being me ("I" of course being justified as the orthodox, fundamentalist Christian). And now they had some small ground to respect me back: I began to experience Christ's words that just as I had done unto others, so would I in turn be treated. Those around me became more willing to respect my faith, my understanding, my Christ. Because they could feel my Christ's respect for them. |
||||||
| 02-15-2014 04:06 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
Only years later did I begin to appreciate the obedience of the Son. Yes, the poet's declarations of allegiance and fealty, and God's subsequent approval were arguably vain, but deeper still lay the Son. And we dismissed this because we thought we already had laid hold of "grace". We missed a lot, I believe. Quote:
Millenia later, we who treasured the NT often weren't too interested in the OT's content because it was, well, old. But in our willful ignorance of what was old and fading away, we failed to truly understand what was new (of course I am painting with a very broad brush here, but I speak as one who sat in meeting after meeting of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity, and heard the conversations after the meetings, and saw the living). Quote:
If it were not for my faith, I would be lost. I am sure of it. By my faith I see the righteous One, and even in the failures of David, Peter, and so many others I now can see God's mercy in Christ Jesus. Through Christ it was available for them, and even for me. For some funny reason it wasn't until I read Psalm 51, for example, that I really could feel the resonance of Jesus saying, "Peter, you will fail. You will deny Me tonight. But I have prayed for you and My prayers will not fail. You will be saved". I was like, wow. Somehow the misery of Psalm 51 allowed me to appreciate Peter's loss, and Christ's hand of mercy reaching out. And on and on. You get my point. Therefore, when Paul wrote "let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly" I think there is a lot of latitude for our own interpretation, application, and experience. Back when I was effectively ignoring the text which formed the shared basis for understanding this kind of encouragement, I was missing some of its latent power. And this misaiming, I later came to feel, Lee had also done. He'd ended up with a teaching but lost the power. |
||||||
| 02-14-2014 11:04 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
But... just because the Psalmist (ch 3) wrote that "I laid me down and slept/I awaked/ for JHWH was with me", and I can 'see' Jesus saying "I have the power to lay my life down, and the power to raise it up again", or just because Psalm 18 said, "He rescued me because He delighted in me" and I subsequently 'see' the Father saying "This is my beloved Son, in whom I delight; hear Him", just because I see these things and feel as though I were 'falling in love all over again for the first time', the rub lies not in some supposed insight nor the momentary excitement that it may engender. No, the rub lies in whether this word endures within me such that others can 'see' this reality lived out. Our assessment of what is Christ in the Word is subjective. And the assessment, by others, of what in us is Christ, is also subjective. This, I believe, is the narrow path. I dare not characterize my journey other than to say I've been delighted to have had an opportunity to travel it, and am truly grateful to God. May He be blessed forever, amen. As to the Son - I am sure that He is there before me, shining, in the word; I am just a bit dull to perceive, is all. But if I struggle in the word the Spirit comes; of this I testify. Beyond that, though I could say(write) a lot, and sometimes do, truly I can hardly say I know, or see, anything at all. The knowing, and seeing, is in the living. "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, and deceiving yourselves." |
||||||
| 02-14-2014 08:24 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog aron, Some time back, I listened through part of a podcast series that was actually from a live classroom at a major seminary of Reformed theology. (I could figure out which one if given some time, but it is really not important.) The podcasts consisted of a class session of lecture, followed by a session of question and answer. The class topic: Preaching Christ in a Postmodern World But the core of the part I listened to (the first half of the sessions) was not really about postmodernism, but about preaching Christ. I found it refreshing that (excluding passages that were strictly speaking of Satan, or something like that) there is, besides the obvious meaning of most of the narrative, some insight into the nature of God, and therefore insight into the nature of Christ. The goal was not to turn everything into Christ. But to almost always find a link back to Christ as part of the sermon. I believe that in later sessions there would be some discussion of the postmodern mindset, coupled with insight into how observable experience if often useful in reaching the postmodern mind. They are not impressed with declarations of truth. But they are impressed with examples of how something is seen as true. This is somewhat the core of the "it's true for you but not for me" mentality. You may have seen something that establishes truth for you. But if I have not seen it, I have no basis to accept it a true for myself. You need to show it to me. So churches full of propositional teaching about the nature of Christ and salvation, and so on, just don't get through. You want to claim that Jesus changes lives? Then show me some changed lives. (And exuberant, joyful people in meetings is irrelevant when they still act like heathen in so many other ways.) You say that righteousness, peace, and joy are in the Holy Spirit, then I need to see righteousness rather than unrighteousness coming from your people. And try as we might, there is an aspect of postmodernism that is taking over the world. It is not the kind of ridiculous extremes of the early days of postmodernism where the rhetoric essentially denied the existence of truth. But it no longer accepts things just because it is written down. No longer do they believe it because it is in the paper (in a book, on the internet, etc.). They require evidence. And Christian groups that seem to thrive on unrighteousness will not have a meaningful impact on the postmodern world because they claim to be more righteous than others simply by their claim to being Christian. So evidence that they are no different will undermine their testimony. And speaking of testimony, it seems that for the LRC, the only testimony that matters is a declaration to God. If they say the right things to God, they think they have a strong testimony. If they believe the right doctrines, they have a better testimony. But their testimony is a slander to the God they claim to serve. They prefer "good material" over others, and in doing so, do not love their neighbor as themselves. They slander honest and righteous men because their honesty stood against evil men, therefore they prefer evil over good. They elevate men to such a level that they become exempt from the very human actions that were directed by Paul with respect to leaders and teachers, therefore they nullify the word of God. And they want to find favor on campuses. Go figure. |
||||||
| 02-14-2014 06:03 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
Three things, for brevity. First, when Peter in his great speech at Pentecost, saw different levels in the scriptural text. The failed, sinful David made a declaration which, to him, didn't come true. Yet Peter didn't spend much time on the "natural concepts" of David but rather said that David was foretelling something to come to his seed, Jesus the Nazarene. So I thought, why can't I use that same rule as well? Second, similarly, the Hebrews author quotes the poetic scripture and says "We see Jesus". I similarly thought that I could do the same thing. Not at the same level, perhaps, not as 'objective truth', but still as my own particular spiritual journey, following Jesus.] Third, in quotes like "none of his bones shall be broken" and "zeal of thine house has eaten me up", nowhere did I see the idea that the Christ was to be found only here, and the surrounding text was void of revelation. Lee, essentially, did just that, which I found offensive. And that he imposed this as the rule in the church I found disgusting. But in saying "the word is Christ" or some other hifalutin statement I didn't mean to impose the same rule, nor do I think that others who like a particular turn of phrase are also doing. Unless you make that explicit one can assume you simply like that turn of phrase. And it means to you whatever it means to you. We will be judged by what we do, more than what words (or phrases) mean to us. |
||||||
| 02-14-2014 05:48 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: Watch Out for Flowery, Spiritual Words Quote:
To me this smacks of "Do as I say, not as I do." Supposedly his outstanding character was the counterweight (I am guessing here). His meekness and humility and mature spirituality would prevent any leading of the flock astray. He as the deputy God (Living Stream terminology) would have a clear line to the interceding High Priest in heaven. Just do what Nee/Lee says, and you are covered, by the "deputy authority". Yet none of this occurred to Nee when he was considering leaving the Protestants. It only made sense after, when he was ensconced as leader of his own "little flock". |
||||||
| 02-13-2014 03:53 PM | |||||||
| awareness |
Re: Watch Out for Flowery, Spiritual Words Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come-outer |
||||||
| 02-13-2014 01:57 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Watch Out for Flowery, Spiritual Words I have been saying for some time that there is something seriously wrong with so much of Nee’s teaching. It was not just a Lee thing to be so ridiculous in devising teachings. But somehow we too often just can’t see the problems with Nee. Since the issue of Deputy Authority has once again risen its head within the discussion concerning the book by a former member of Nee’s church in Shanghai, I once again started looking into it. At the same time, on the other forum it was suggested that we try to determine if Spiritual Authority (aka Authority and Submission) might be in some way responsible for causing the external designation as a cult by others. The person who opened the line of discussion then scanned through the book and discovered that all of the parameters seemed to be sound and scriptural. The character and demeanor of the authority. Their position as a servant. And so on. And at one point it seems to say that they are accountable to God. And that would be 100% true. But when you slow down in your reading, you discover many things that undermine the apparent spirituality of the teaching. The church must absolutely obey. They are unable to make any accusation against the authority. And in one place, Nee actually says that the authority is not subject to correction because of sin, but only because of rebellion (or something like that). It is derived from an example of the sons of the priest who were judged by God for doing what was not allowed. Can’t remember if it centered around Eli’s sons, or Nadab and Abihu. But these were similar issues. Nee asserts that it was not because they sinned, but because they dared to do something not under the headship of the high priest. I never figured out where he got that. It was true that it was not under the HP’s headship. But there is nothing that I could see that made that the reason for their deaths. Rather, it was for their wanton sin being brought into the holy place. Yet this is a point of error that stands strong in Nee’s mind to insist that a church cannot challenge a “deputy authority” based on sin. And when I back away from this one inquiry, I even see that so much of the book is just full of conjecture and misdirection (intentional or otherwise). But it is all spoken/written in such pious and spiritual terms that it is easy to be fooled into believing that you are reading the word of God itself. And this may be one of the most insidious things about Nee’s writings. From my limited research in the past few years, I have found him to be consistently sloppy (being generous) with handling and interpreting the scripture. He replaces words to achieve a goal without even making a case for the correctness of the replacement (and in the case of the book we are discussing here, he was not correct). He declares things to be the most important thing. But he does not even bother to give a reason. Just says it. Yet it could be argued to sound so right that it is too easy to just take it as truth. And a whole lot of people have. Fortunately, most readers of Nee are not from with in the LRC, so they have not been exposed to the worst of them. But even some of his more popular inner-life books dance around the errors that Lee eventually lead us into. Sit Walk Stand, his short book on Ephesians sets you up to accept “wait for the dispensing.” I read it again several years ago and it stuck out to me like a sore thumb. That was my window into the questioning of Nee. But it was a couple of years after that when someone was spouting quotes from one chapter in Lee’s Economy of God that I first saw the scriptural mishandling coupled with declarations that things not even supported were settled so we could move on. Near the same time, there was some study into Nee’s Further Talks on the Church Life in which he set out to better settle his church = city rule. Seems that he had not yet dealt with the house churches. So he simply said that it could not mean that because it would violate the church = city rule. And so the rule that needed proof became the evidence to refute the evidence against it. Standard circular reasoning. Begging the question. I recall Max R coming to Dallas one time back in the 70s (of course he was only around in the 70s). He was poking fun at some new “maharaji” of some sort that had set up shop in the Astrodome. He said, “all you have to do is say ‘up is up; down is down; the hands of the clock go round and round’ and you will have a following.” Pretty funny. And too true. We just didn’t see that we were being lead astray by less foolish-sounding words, but they were nonetheless in error. They just sounded good. I recall times when some would stand in a meeting and declare to Christians that they should “come out of her my people” as if they (now we) were in the whore of Babylon. I’m not sure that I would characterize the LRC as the whore of Babylon. But its inhabitants really need to come out. They have been inhaling garlic fumes for too long. They have become befuddled by the smoke of an opium den. But, unfortunately, it seems that it is too much like crack cocaine or methamphetamine. They need fix after fix to keep going. They long for the leeks and garlic of he LRC. |
||||||
| 10-31-2013 03:38 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog I decided to put this here rather than in the thread I started it in. It would be off-topic and probably not get enough interest to be its own thread. So this seems like the best place for it. First, while I will use uncredited quotes from recent posts, I do not provide the credit because I do not consider anything to be peculiarly wrong with what they have said — maybe other than we may not be saying what we think we are saying (with due deference to Inigo Montoya’s “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”) I am not suggesting that I know what it means. But for various reasons, I have begun to think it is not what I have long thought. Here goes: When talking about the “pure Word of the Bible” comes this line: Quote:
We have had a poster here in the past that was so big on the gospels only. Ignoring his other issues, I admire that he espoused the idea that the core of the NT is in the gospels, not in the epistles. But Lee (and I think also Nee) bases virtually all of his theology on the epistles, and most importantly, on those of Paul. In addition to the aforementioned poster, there is a significant groundswell in certain sectors of Christianity to downplay Paul. I’ve seen articles in which they are sort of allowing Paul back in by “rehabilitating” his writings. But the problem is not Paul. It is us. Just like the problem is not the Psalms or James, it is us (or more specifically, Lee). It is not just a Lee problem. It is heavily an evangelical and fundamental problem. Most of our core teaching starts with Paul rather than with Jesus in the gospels. That would be OK if we truly understood Paul. But when we declare that our new life in Christ is by grace and not works, we prove our misunderstanding of that passage. It did not dismiss works other than with respect to what it is that provides salvation. And when we read that I am free from the law of sin and death and declare that the law is abolished, we clearly have not read Christ. He said it remained. He said it was harder than we originally thought. (Funny, we think the Jewish leaders were simply stupid adding on so many more nuances to the actual laws. But Jesus took it even further!) If we started with Jesus — with the gospels — and allowed the following material to provide further understanding, we would never use the words of Paul to dismiss the words of Christ. But Lee seemed to do it a lot. Jesus says "you think that not committing actual adultery is enough. I say that if you think about it you did it!" Lee says that it technically does not matter because the law is abolished. He thinks that is what Paul said. And sometimes we do it too. We allow the epistles (ignoring James for some) to not only “denude the surrounding text of Christ,” but to denude Christ’s text. To refuse his own words. The second thing that is bothering me was: Quote:
So the first response should be “what could be wrong with that?” On the surface, I agree. But what do we mean when we say that? What did John mean when he wrote that? (Or more correctly, what did God mean when he inspired John to write.) I don’t think I know for sure. But we have been operating on the premise that it is one particular thing to the exclusion of other possibilities. And we probably have never considered that there is even one other possibility. The Word is the spoken/written expression of who God is. Since he does not lie, it is an accurate description. But as written, every word is not necessarily descriptive of God in itself. “In the beginning, the earth was waste and void” (or whatever translation you want to use) does not describe God. But the narrative in Genesis 1 tells us a lot about God. But when I juxtapose a statement like “the pure Word of the Bible which is Christ himself” up against Genesis 1:1, I am left with a resounding “Huh?” There is something about this statement (and there are similar statements outside of the LRC, so this is not personal to us) that seems to be making more out of words than what they are. The description of the death of Judas is not Christ. But in the context of the story of his life on earth, his betrayal, death and resurrection, we learn something about mankind in the description of the destruction of someone who rejected Christ. So, as a whole, we learn much about Christ. But in isolation, it is not “simply Christ” (to borrow from our favorite debunked MOTA). The very things recorded are at God’s behest. The specific words used to say it may or may not have been key. (It is a case-by-case issue and I am not the one to ask. I think this is one of the reasons that which translation, or translation method, is often not as important as some often think. I even wonder if reading something as different from the norm as The Message might be enlightening because it removes the presumptions from what is said, how it is said, and what we already think it means. The alternate rendering could open our eyes to reconsidering meaning — which will still need to be checked against the literal words/phrases. Sometimes we just need to get our default answer set aside to be able to see something new.) The point is not that the Word is not God. Or the Word is not Christ. It is just that it is not in the way of some kind of magical thing (like that Book of the Dead in “The Mummy” that you had to be careful how you spoke it out loud). So somewhere between “every word is specially ordained by God” and “that part is the natural concept of man” is the truth. And the truth is that the story of God — the revelation of God — is the revelation of his person and relationships. Relationship within the godhead. Relationship with man. The parts that tell us who and what God is are often direct. But not always. Sometimes we learn who his is through the story. The details of the story are not God. But the story is. So in one sense, the word is Christ. In another the word is not, itself, Christ, but tells of him. Just like we don’t consider that a book became flesh. Rather, the thing told of in the story became flesh. The God who spoke to few directly came in body and spoke to everyone. The crossing of the Red Sea did not become flesh. But the God who caused it did. So what do we mean when we say “the pure Word of the Bible is Christ Himself”? If we mean that the cause of it is Christ, or the force behind its very existence is Christ, I understand. If we say that the words “now the serpent was more crafty than . . .” is Christ, what does that mean? Unless it just means that when put with a lot of other words, we learn something about God and about his relationship with man. I’m coming to the thought that the words are, in themselves, nothing special. But when we see how God is revealed in its narratives, descriptions, and in the very words that he spoke on various occasions, nothing is meaningless. Nothing is “natural concept of man.” Nothing is worthy of derision. I guess that what I am saying (in way too many words) is that making bald declarations like “the pure Word of the Bible is just Christ himself” doesn’t solve anything or do anything. It even could be argued to suggest something that I don’t think we mean. But finding God, Christ, the Spirit revealed in so many ways and aspects throughout its collection of words does a lot. The catchphrase too often distracts from the revelation that is really there. Almost like ignoring grace because Christ is grace. If Christ is grace, then what is grace? If I do not need grace, but only Christ, then why mention it? If the Pure Word is just Christ, then I don’t need the word. I just need Christ and it all comes to me. If so, then why the word? If so then why do we stray so far when we think we are so spiritual and only caring for Christ? This may be as much of the problem with where Lee and the LRC have gone as anything else. Replace the truth found in the Word with a catchphrase that allows you to do without it. |
||||||
| 09-25-2013 02:57 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Christ is Everything — I am not Quote:
But is it really true? Or just thought of as true because everyone says it is? I'm not diminishing the actual charges that are laid at each of our feet. But despite years of hearing "no clergy-laity" shouted by and to us, there is strong evidence that Jesus said certain things to everyone, a lesser amount to the large group of regular followers, and still a smaller body of things to the 12/11. And when we read Paul and others, they also suggest the same things. They indicate that there are teachers. If everything is to everyone, then we should teach ourselves.Don't anyone get their panties in a wad over this. I'm not trying to shirk what is my responsibility and charge. But not everything is charged to everybody. And the charge to Peter was said specifically to Peter, and only in the presence of a few. I do not deny that there is an aspect of feeding that occurs among all believers. But Jesus had a larger charge for his closest apostles. He took them aside and sent them to preach the gospel to the all the world. To baptize and to instruct in the commands of Jesus. No. It would be impossible to say that "feed my sheep" does not apply to us all at some level. But I believe it is equally impossible to say that the charge that was being spoken to Peter was something that was clearly spoken to us all in the same way that it was spoken to Peter. Yes, there is a royal priesthood — a kingdom of priests — but I think we over-apply the meaning of that metaphor when we insist that everybody is everything. That we all do it all and have been charged in that way. As I said, I'm not trying to excuse my lacks. I'm trying to discover what it is that is really a command to me so that I can quit beating myself up for failure to be Peter, or John, or Paul. And instead find myself one of the multitude that sat at their feet for teaching then went back to family, community, and work to live the life that we were made for — to bear the image of God in all that we do. |
||||||
| 02-20-2013 12:37 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
The Magic Book I was reading one of my favorite blogs and came across this portion that was reposted from a much longer post of years earlier. I won't say that I am entirely in sync with the blogger's thoughts, but do think he is onto something important. - - - From the "Internet Monk" (not Catholic) http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/...h-to-the-bible - - - I believe most Christians use the word “inspiration” to mean “the Bible is a magic book, where God speaks to us in unusual ways.” By this they mean that the contents of the Bible – the verses – have unusual power when read or applied. So if we were to transfer this idea to another book, and treat it as we treat the Bible, it might be like this: If we considered “Walden” to be inspired in the typical evangelical way, we would not be looking for the big ideas or the main point in Thoreau’s book, but we would be examining particular sentences to see if they “spoke to us.” The actual text of “Walden” would be secondary to our use of verses. So on, let’s say, the matter of changing jobs, we might find a sentence that says, “Most men live lives of quiet desperation,” and we would conclude that this verse is God telling us to change jobs. Or another sentence might say, “I left my job and moved to the woods.” This, we would say, is God speaking to us. Now we might be able to read the entire book and sustain that conclusion, or we might find – if we studied better – that the book didn’t sustain that particular use of an individual sentence. It wouldn’t really matter, however, to most of us, because God used the verse to speak to us, and that is the way we read the Bible. Or, for further example, say someone is facing a troubled marriage. He reads and discovers a sentence in “Walden” that says, “I did not speak to another person for over a month.” From this, he concludes that God is telling him to not argue with his spouse. The fact that this is a universe away from what Thoreau meant with that sentence would be irrelevant. This is how we would be using “Walden” as a “magic book.” Recognize the method? I think we all do. If we were committed to the “magic book” approach and someone were to teach “Walden” as a whole, telling us the main ideas and message in the book, we might not consider that particularly impressive. It is nice to know what the book says, we would say, but the use of the book as a “magic text” doesn’t depend at all on understanding the meaning of the overall book, or the message Thoreau was conveying. Introductions and analysis of the book as a whole would almost be a secondary, and mostly useless, exercise in comparison to the more exciting and personal “magic book” use of “Walden.” We might be confident, in fact, that the ordinary reader can handle the “inspired Walden” with far more relevance for his life than the educated scholar handles the same book, because the scholar doesn’t believe that the sentences contain the power. So ignorance is no barrier in the magic book approach. Recognize that, too? Uh-huh. - - - - Any thoughts? |
||||||
| 01-10-2013 07:57 PM | |||||||
| countmeworthy |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
When I was in the LC, we mostly used the KJ. I learned to pray read from the KJ. The scriptures that are inscribed in my heart and mind are from the KJ and the NASB, which we also used briefly. In recent years, I have cross referenced the Amplifie, New Living Translation and on very few occasions the NIV. My RcV is in a box collecting dust. It was given to me. I have skimmed through it but. I have never really used it as as study bible. But just like the RCC impacted my upbringing, the LC also made an impact on me which is why I come and go. I think I go to mass once a year due to weddings, funerals, or some other invite. I even participate in the litergy except when they pray the "Hail Mary". I draw the line there. No can do. Will not do. I have attended some AOG services but not recently. I am not a tongue speaking die hard. I have prayed in tongues BY FAITH, believing the Holy Spirit is praying through me when I could not find the words to pray with. Other church services and prayer meetings I have attended in the last 10 years all emphasized praying in tongues. I tried to be open. Ultimately I would much rather pray the scriptures. I think it is commendable you have been generous towards the RCC without giving them a free pass. My one neighbor is a very religious Catholic. He was ordained a deacon a couple of years ago. I went to the elaborate mass. I never prayed so hard or so much. NOT because it was a devilish service. Had I not prayed as I did, I would have either been bored out of my mind or would have fallen asleep! I developed a new appreciation for crucifying the flesh!!!! Quote:
Quote:
[Quote]I know that my generosity to the RCC may tend to grate on some. I do not think they are simply OK. There is much to say about them. But I also cannot join with those who virtually declare them to be not a church.[Quote] It does not grate on me. I am not sure that it grates on anyone here. Of course, if you -converted- to Catholicism eating up the whole enchilada, well that would ruffle a lot of feathers! I do not know that anyone argues it is not a church. Setting aside, we learned in the LC the RCC is represented by the CHURCH in Thyatira in Revelation 3, it is true. In fact, when I did my own personal study of who are those that call themselves Jews but are from the synagogue of Satan, I discovered it was the "converted" Jews Paul was warning in the book of Hebrews who were responsible for instituting the RCC. And that is all I will say about that.  Quote:
Quote:
He has several books detailing his findings. He died in 1999. That said, I know many Catholics who love the Lord Jesus. I believe many Catholics are saved, truly born again. Quote:
Thanks for sharing and blessings to you and your family Mike..especially those stuck in the grip of the LSM. |
||||||
| 01-10-2013 02:19 PM | |||||||
| countmeworthy |
Re: What is the Main Thing? (Not the Church) Quote:
Very good points made Aron. Letting go of the -dogma- "Christ and the church" has helped me focus on God and my relationship with Him through the Living Word, Jesus, operating in me through His Holy Spirit. I read and search the scriptures asking the Lord to give me revelation, insight and understanding where I lack it. I do not shut out teachings, preaching and fellowship. What I have discovered is if I do not sit under a pastor's teaching or have daily/weekly fellowship with church going friends/brethren, that I am -not- going to die spiritually. So what if I do not pray with someone everyday or fellowship with brethren everyday?? I used to look for fellowship with brethren daily and opportunities to share the gospel as well. Not anymore. If it happens it happens. The Lord usually brings someone to me without me trying. So focusing on Jesus, the Word, the Lord has become my priority. :-) Carol G |
||||||
| 01-09-2013 11:03 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Having just stepped into another minefield, I have to admit that I am less and less concerned with the ongoing errors of the LRC (others are dealing with those quite well), but more and more concerned about how we have simply replaced one kind of dogma for another. Maybe not as extreme a dogma, but dogma nonetheless. We are too often busy lobbing well-deserved grenades over the LRC’s fence to notice that while we may have moderated our position on Christianity, we still have so many of the problems with it that we never imagined were there until Lee and his lackey’s told us about them. We have jettisoned “the ground” but somewhat condemn ourselves to actually proving Benson’s (and others’) claims that you just can’t go on anywhere else. Why? Because they have a choir. Or they have a rock band. Or they actually say the words “go to church.” The list goes on and on. We continue to determine that the errors of denominationalism are what we were told because we can find evidence of some spiritual or doctrinal error occurring inside of some of them in some locations (assemblies). Or we distrust even elders because we know of an elder that (fill in the blank with whatever evil or error). We want to encourage the LRC membership to feel free to jump ship, then turn around and declare that most of everything else is no better. If that is the case, if your particular city doesn’t have and real dealings with Anaheim (as far as the average member can tell) and has some real spiritual camaraderie, why exchange the devil you know for a different devil? Are we that unhappy with where we have gone? Is it really worse than that little group in Corinth that Paul had to chastise so severely? In most cases, I bet it is not. Yes, you can find issues with some of the older denominations. I note that there is about to be another split in the Lutheran ranks over the recent ordination of an actively gay preacher/priest. It is unfortunate that there is no one with the status of Paul to kick that in the head. But there isn’t. But the fact that this happens is not proof that the LRC is right. Or more importantly it is not proof that the LRC is the “only true church.” And it does not make any other group (and maybe even member assemblies of that group) spiritually unfit. It is interesting that when we first linked-up with the LRC in the early/mid 70s, there was a significant movement underway that brought many Christians together despite their preferences in meeting or doctrine. To some extent, it was precursor to much of the breaking down of walls between groups that has increased over the years since. But the LRC offered a different way. Form yet another sect and specialize in pointing at everyone else’s flaws. Reminds me of a song from the Sesame Street movie, “Follow That Bird.” Oscar the Grouch sings the "Grouch National Anthem" which includes the lines: Let this be your grouchly causeDoesn’t take much modification to make it an anthem for the LRC. The question is, have we completely stopped singing it? I keep finding that I have not. And then for some period of time after each realization, I struggle to reset my mind, by the Spirit, to have the mind of Christ rather than just the mind of Lee. I’m sure that it will continue. |
||||||
| 01-09-2013 10:29 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog In the last post, I mentioned having read The Mind Benders back in 2005. Based on more recent discussions here, I am fairly certain that it was The God-Men that I actually read. What I read was only concerning the LRC. I believe that The Mind Benders covers several sects/cults, originally including the LRC. |
||||||
| 09-25-2012 01:28 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog OK. Enough is enough. I now have to redraft this post because the #*%&^@ McAfee Site Advisor popped-up as I was hitting “review” to ask whether I really wanted to be on this site. While not the inevitable outcome, this time it lost the post so that when I got back to here, to do the reviewing, the post did not exist. It was not in the previous screen. It was gone. 30 minutes of effort lost. McAfee says that for smaller sites, they don’t have the resources to check everything out, so they need site administrators to register their sites with them. It may be an annoyance, but it will decrease our ongoing annoyance. But I will try to mostly recreate my thoughts. This time offline. I always used to do it that way. But with the introduction of Office 2007, there began to be problems keeping weird formatting issues out of the forum. But, alas, I guess it must be until that little site advisor turns from yellow to green when I log onto this site. I’m sure that this version will be quite different from the original. - - - - I have probably got some of you wondering what is going on with me. I visit less regularly. More like sporadically. And I have begun to take some even more strong stands in favor of Christianity as we know it. And I don’t really leave any of it out. It does sort of make one wonder why I would bother picking on the LRC if I can be so generous to the RCC. I’m not giving the RCC a free pass. But the problems I have with the LRC affect me and my relationship with family. So those clearly stand out as more important to me. For the past year I have begun to drop out of some things. I rarely visit facebook any more. I have been reading less of the extreme “emergent” blogs that I used to follow. I have even stopped being regular here. (Add to that a week-long trip to the NW for rest and relaxation with my younger son and I’ve not been around much lately.) But I am at a different place in my spiritual journey. The journey began in my youth with the Assemblies of God (AOG). During my senior year of high school, we (the whole family) left that for the LRC. Just up and left. (Of course, that is fairly common of LRC converts.) Then 14.5 years later, me, my wife, and our two young children (5 and 2) left the LRC. We have mostly been at one Bible church the whole time. We recently moved to another Bible church. Not because of problems or disagreements. But our son followed a girl at Dallas Theological Seminary to this other group and married her. We get to see them more often this way. (That kind of thing will get you the label of “marginal” in the LRC.) But before that, back in 2005, I got a copy of The Mind Benders, that awful book that we sued back in the late 70s / early 80s. Then shortly after that, The Thread of Gold. It was through that author that I found out about the BARM and from there we have mostly moved here. What the books, and then the forums showed me was that our exit from the LRC was far from complete. We continued to hold onto too much of their thinking and ways. I began to see the words of scripture as they were written and not as they were reinterpreted for us. I am now convinced that the old things are neither something to be discarded like dirt from your shoes, nor cherished like there can be no more. The ways of various groups are just that — ways. They are not gospel. Neither are they heresy. Then why would I come here to join in chastising the LRC when I think that virtually all the others are OK? Not because I think all others are the best, but because I think that the “we are superior” mindset of the LRC, coupled with a core of teaching that gives unrighteous liberties to the leadership while keeping the rank-and-file under worse chains than we think are on those in the RCC. And I know that my generosity to the RCC may tend to grate on some. I do not think they are simply OK. There is much to say about them. But I also cannot join with those who virtually declare them to be not a church. But within that, I believe that there are many more there who are “saved” than the rest of us like to consider possible. I’m convinced that Martin Luther did not complain that Catholics did not have faith. They simply did not understand that the faith they had gave them surety. Since this was not a teaching pushed forward by the RCC, the fact that salvation was attained by the simple act of faith was not recognized. But that did not make it untrue. I don’t think that Martin Luther was trying to get Catholics saved. He was trying to show that they were and could know it. And nothing has really changed. Yeah, the RCC still suggests that you need another mediator. Pretty poor. But at the same time, they may be better at confessing their sins one to another than most of the rest of us are. I think that we like to just “tell it to Jesus” and leave it at that. Surely that is the important thing. But as we do find that we are perpetually needing to “tell it,” and often for the same thing over and over, telling it to someone else actually does help us to have someone with an audible voice trying to help us keep in line. Does the RCC system do all of this? No. But then again, I’m not sure of one that fully does. My alternate journey through study on the “emerging church” movement (They hate to be called a movement) is also dwindling. Not because I have found all my answers, but because I am finding that there has always been a center and that study (along with this one) helped clear away the vines that had grown over the door into the center. The church is not the center. Ministers are not the center. Jesus is the center. Following Jesus is the center. Obeying is the center. Love God and love your fellow man. If you can’t link it back to this, you probably don’t understand it and it isn’t the center. And you don’t love your fellow man by denigrating him/her as poor and pathetic. Love does not stand at a distance and demand that everyone rush to your side. I will continue to participate here on and off because I still have family in the LRC. My father, a brother and a sister, along with their spouses and children. 14 in all, including 3 of my nephews’ spouses. There is no way to avoid the clueless insults that come from their mouths at times. They never mean to insult. They just don’t see it. They are clueless. So let’s give them some clues. |
||||||
| 06-06-2012 01:41 PM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: What is the Main Thing? (Not the Church) Quote:
The Gospel, the Good News, is concerning Jesus. I would posit that those who focus on "building" are in danger of building Babylon. |
||||||
| 05-26-2012 06:57 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Ministry Reading Pabulum Over the years, from times in the LRC through almost twice as many years outside it, we have had discussions about the kind of things that are preached. Now in the LRC, there is nothing being “preached” any more because it would appear that they have gone to self-feeding from pre-packaged, pre-interpreted, pre-digested, now regurgitated history under the title “Ministry Reading Portion.” Since the LRC, we have experienced different kinds of preaching as the group we have been part of for virtually all of the time went from searching for a new preacher and then the following years as the new preacher began to alter his approach to his tasks. I recall discussions about whether sermons were too touchy-feely, or too theologically heady. Sometimes sermons seem to be directed at someone else. (That is typical when you don’t want it to touch you.) Sometimes it seems too much like just great instructions for living with limited real connection to the scripture. Other times there is much analysis of the scripture but what to do with it seems less certain. But the day that the core of a sermon is something like what was in the Church in Bellevue’s May 20, 2012 “Ministry Reading Portion” is the day I seek a new source of ministry. My wife and I may disagree at times about some aspects of the way that sermons are developed and given. We may wish for more scriptural content, or better connection to the application(s). But when the core of it really has nothing to do with me, or to the extent that it does, it is all about me getting lost in some larger group that has all of these ethereal attributes, I find it useless. I repost from the Bellevue weekly fellowship: Quote:
But this is not a discussion of a passage. It is a collection of assertions under a heading to which verses have been attached by reference, and in some cases paraphrase or snippets included, to collect something together into one in a way that is not found in scripture. Genesis 2:18 is not simply a statement made to reveal God’s heart. God is not like my grandmother who who never asked anyone to pass anything at a family dinner. She would always ask you if you wanted some of what was in front of you. From that, you were to deduce that she wanted some and send it on its way to her. (So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.) This whole passage of Lee — with a light sprinkling of minor scriptural references — removes us from the picture. Note that the stuff in Ephesians is not for the individual Christian. It is for the corporate church. That might be somewhat true. But Ephesians does not say that. It does not exclude the application to the individual. Neither does it give it strictly to the corporate. And the part on the City. A whole lot of conjecture about the totality of cities gleaned from looking at, well, cities. The scripture eventually referenced does not actually support much of what was said. It was simply stated as fact and we are to declare “Hallelujah!” and ignore that nagging question inside. I listened to my (literally) genius mother who taught herself to read (she read Gone With the Wind in early elementary school) declare that she could not understand scripture on her own. I will admit that we are often a little too free to think that we only need a Bible and the Spirit and we will do just fine. We really do need people whose lives are given to study of the scripture to help us. But when that help has such a limited link to what scripture actually says, and expects us to swallow things so nearly opposed to scripture as true, then we need to declare that we do have good minds, turn them back on, and use them to reject this kind of lull-you-to-sleep nonsense that relegates your “Christian life” to just being part of something else. That has nothing real and meaningful to say about the life you now live other than to turn that verse in Galatians into a slogan. |
||||||
| 05-09-2012 09:04 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
What is the Main Thing? (Not the Church) I recently read in a book an account by the writer of his last year of college in which he needed one more religion class for his major. So he approached a professor to suggest an independent study project. The professor initially balked, but then said “OK” and assigned a 50-page paper on “The Idea of the Good in the Teachings of Jesus.” So for three months he learned something about Jesus that his Southern Baptist upbringing and training never even suggested. The Jesus in the gospels is not in the same world as our churches (including both the SBC and the LRC). This just underscored something that I believe is so key to discovering the core of so many of the LRC’s problems. (And, I should add, the problems in a whole lot of churches.) We really do not base our theology on the teachings of Jesus and on the direct accounts of his words, actions, and life. We base it on the commentary required to help people who were not there in Galilee and Jerusalem with Jesus. Who were not already knowledgeable of the underpinnings of the Jewish faith in the unique God. And we do not take the care to be sure that we are simply using that commentary to understand the core in the gospels. (I will admit that, while there was something wrong with the focus and posts of one past participant here, he was right to point to the gospels as the starting point.) For me, I’m beginning to see that, while I would never say that the church is not important, it is not the focus of the New Testament. The gospels almost do not speak of it. They speak of our lives. Of how we live. And Acts does not so much talk about the church as it does describe the spread of the gospel to people who gathered together as the church. And the people in Acts are not focused on the church, but on their lives and their relationships with God and with each other. They were busy teaching everyone to obey all that Jesus commanded. And if the record we have is representative, little of it had to do with the church. And of those very few mentions by Jesus, at least one is a spiritual/administrative unpleasantry in the form of discipline of a seriously wayward member. How many times does the NT focus on the church as some kind of special end-all theological centerpiece? Compare that to how many times and for how much of the text there is discussion of the living of those who would be followers of Christ. The church is not unimportant. But it is not the centerpiece of the post-ascension kingdom. It is the people living as originally created that is the centerpiece. Yes, they are the church. But, like so many other of Lee’s errors, by repackaging it, he diminishes the real importance. Grace isn’t something observable. It is just Christ. Mercy isn’t realized as such, it is just Christ. You don’t need mercy. You just need Christ. Turn away from your needs and just seek Christ. Forget that pathetic prayer about your daily bread. So what if it was Jesus that said to pray it. After the crucifixion and resurrection, it is just law, so you can forget it. He didn’t really mean for us to pray those kinds of prayers. He just gave them something to tide them over until he would be in them. Yes, the church is the body of Christ. And it is the Bride of Christ. But this is all metaphor. And the church is not some thing. It is not some place. It is not some building. It is the Christians. So the Christians are the body of Christ. The Christians are the Bride of Christ. We are the ones who walk on the earth today. Who speak to people. Who demonstrate the love for neighbor and enemy. Here’s a test for what kind of Christian you are. I won’t bother trying to score you. Those that get it will understand and those that don’t won’t. For each of the following, what is the first thing you think of, what is the first action you think should be taken, and what part do you think the church has in it:
Oh, I could go on into more irrelevant things, and into things some think are even more important. The funny thing is that even the more irrelevant things are thought to be important by some. But the question is not what you think about some of these in theological terms. Instead it is what you do with them in the context of human interaction and the living of a life of a Christ follower. And I know that most of this is not fodder for discussions within the main forum. But I believe that this is part of the fundamental error of Lee’s teachings and the LRC. It is that almost everything is backwards in terms of importance. Or emphasized in the wrong aspects. Like abiding is not about basking and taking in. It is about participating in a process that includes both taking in of a supply and the use of that supply to do things. I welcome small comments here in the blogosphere. If you really want to discuss some of this, find the right place in the main forum and set up a thread. |
||||||
| 09-08-2011 02:18 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
God The following comes from a thread begun by awareness which sprung from another thread started by aron. Following are my thoughts on the comments with respect to post #100 in the “Lee and the book of Job” thread. While it will be easy to discover who wrote the post (if you don’t already know) my intent is not to speak to him only, but to the topic. I do refer to “you,” though it is not intended to elicit his specific response. But I have to talk to someone, even an imaginary “you.” Quote:
And second, there are several comments that speak of incompatibility of two different Gods, or aspects of God. If this is a hidden way of saying that neither is God and there is no God, or even no god, or only gods, then don’t bother reading the rest because it does accept the philosophical existence of one God who is creator of everything. That is my religion. Some have a “it came from nothing and I don’t know why” religion. Or some other religion, including the “I just don’t care to think about it, I just don’t believe in a god” religion. Otherwise, read on. Quote:
And on what basis does anyone command of God that he remove calamity? All calamity? All the way back to pre-fall conditions? (Of course with the retention of our modern-day conveniences.) God does not continually dole out bad karma. He simply removed some of the protection against evil and allowed it to run its course. This is where the free will of man comes into play. Man had a choice in the beginning. He could remain in a pristine environment with protection from all possible calamity, or he could reach out and take the one thing commanded against — and bearing a consequence. The consequence was the limiting of the life of man, the release of restraint on the natural calamity that can be around us (flood, famine, wild animals, thorns, weeds, poisons, etc.) as well as on the effects of the evil that can be dreamed up in the hearts of men, with or without the help of Satan and his demons. On what basis is this the result of God’s wrongdoing? Quote:
But even if you do believe that, on what basis are you/we to conclude that this is a true statement? Quote:
What makes the God of power incompatible with the God of justice? Is it the presumption that power must be exerted at its maximum and Justice must be exerted at its maximum and it is clear that at their maximums they will overlap and be at odds? Then do you deny God the rational facilities to decide how to dole out his power and justice? Or do we demand that justice override power, therefore if someone needs justice and power shows up, then God must be deficient. Do we demand that God be what we would have him to be? Would we refuse to pray that God make us to be what he would have us to be? Even if it meant a shortened life that demonstrated his very existence? Quote:
I started to move on from this part. But I think that it is here that the crux of the issue is at work. God is morality. Every aspect of God operates within morality. And part of morality is the acceptance of the thoughts and actions of others. God allowed us free will. What is free will if it is immediately ignored to step in and stamp out the results of free will gone amok? You may argue that Job did not exercise free will in such a manner as to obtain the calamities that Satan was allowed to put on him. And yet Job has exercised his free will to determine that his lot in life is not the result of his wrongdoing, but something else. And that something else was not the morality, or lack thereof, of God. And the existence of the calamity that befell him was the result of another’s free will (even if that other lived centuries before). And it was compounded by the author of evil in our environment, Satan, who exercised some kind of free will long before man first stretched out his hand in disobedience to God. Quote:
His question challenges God? Well, it would be at least somewhat correct to say that Job did challenge God. And God responded with his own challenge. Here is a shortened paraphrase of God’s response. Would you discredit me? Can you begin to do anything that I have done or continue to do? Can you stretch out your hand and build and destroy? Punish and reward? Clothe yourself in spender? If so, then I will accept that you are an equal and can save yourself. Oddly enough, before God even says this, Job has essentially slapped his hand over his mouth and said “Hush my mouth. I am a fool.” Is that the man on the higher ground? Or the man who recognizes that he is on a small speck of dirt far below the realm of the God that made it all. Last. I am not sure how it is concluded that Jesus is the answer to Job’s suffering of evil. That Jesus is the result of a seeking to answer Job’s question. That God steps back upon hearing Job’s complaint and ponders for a few centuries and manages to come up with Christ and his suffering. ----- I have recently mentioned at least once, maybe more, the idea that there are two ways to look at God. The best way to state them is that we can either accept God and what that means for us, or we can dissect God and analyze the ways he relates to us. In acceptance, God is the creator. He is the supplier and is far above us. And even in our calamities, we are comforted by his very existence even if we are not relieved of the calamity. In dissecting, we bring God close and make him into thousands of propositions, attributes, etc. We study how those relate to us, and we seek to see them operate in relation to us. And if we are not careful, we come to conclude that we can dictate or direct how they operate. Or we come to conclude that certain attributes are the keys and force everything to fit into that understanding. Like separating God into schizophrenic personalities of power, justice, love, etc., and demanding which one should be present and in what circumstances. But in the end, we will do both. We will accept and we will study. But in our dissection and study we should always remember that we are focusing on minutia concerning something (someone) so vast that it is like trying to understand the ecosystem of North America by looking at a garden in someone’s back yard in upstate New York. Yes, we are told a lot about God through his Word as recorded in scripture. But it is not exhaustive. It is what we need for our life. And since we are not tasked with dealing with things outside our world of flesh and bones (other than to pray concerning the principalities and powers), we are not told everything. Just what we need. So we should get to know our God. Know that he is power, justice, love, righteousness, grace, peace, and so much more. And we should be at peace to live this life under the care of the God that is the whole thing, not just a collection of things. I’m never going to phrase it in a way that would be worthy of a book or a study of theology or philosophy. And if the reason for the distress about God brought on by reading Job is related to real-life calamities for which there are no earthly answers and that do not seem to square up with what we think we know about God, then this whole thing is entirely too cerebral and heartless to even be considered. Another heartless and cerebral response to that would be to point out that the problem may be that we too often are so stuck on the overarching meaning of God’s attributes — like saying “God is love” and taking this to mean that anything that we wouldn’t consider an act of love to either be something from Satan, or evidence piling up that there is no God or that he really isn’t love. But too often it is the focus on the minutia concerning God rather than resting in the totality of God that is the problem. I like those irrelevant Life study message titles that ZNP recently posted. Those are the result of focusing on minutia. They take us away from real life and from the experience of acts of grace, love, justice, righteousness, etc., in the midst of a fallen and sinful world and cause us to think for a moment that we have found the variant of minutia that will get the best stuff out of God. Then when it doesn’t pan out, since the bar was set so high, we either refuse to believe that God is real, or continue on trapped in our pride that will not let us admit we could have been wrong. That is how so many either hang on in the LRC in quiet desperation, or leave in a huff and go off the deep end. Fortunately those are not the only answers or possibilities. But they are too prevalent. |
||||||
| 09-08-2011 04:57 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Thinking Outside the LRC Box 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. |
||||||
| 03-29-2011 11:33 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Lee Colored Glasses 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) |
||||||
| 03-25-2011 06:40 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
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. |
||||||
| 11-23-2010 02:50 PM | |||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: OBW's Blog 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. |
||||||
| 11-23-2010 11:13 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog 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: Quote:
In any case, I followed his comment with the following: Quote:
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.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. |
||||||
| 07-31-2009 01:19 PM | |||||||
| YP0534 |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
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. |
||||||
| 07-31-2009 11:58 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
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. |
||||||
| 07-31-2009 09:28 AM | |||||||
| YP0534 |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
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. |
||||||
| 07-31-2009 08:45 AM | |||||||
| awareness |
Re: We're all screwed up..... Quote:
But really, when you think about it - your heartfelt concern for your family aside for a moment - your concern for psychological effects applies to people of all religions. It's more than obvious that religion makes people do crazy things. One example among thousands, if not millions, or billions : I just saw a video of women wearing Burkas trying to eat spaghetti. It's one of the stupidest things I've seen lately. I really can't believe people can be so utterly stupid. And can you imagine the women that live under this religion? Don't ya just know they are suffering the psychological effects of Stockholm Syndrome? My heart goes out to them. My mother was a staunch Southern Baptist ; living clearly under the law. She has passed on but when she was living it came to me in mid-life that I was never going to be close to my mother ; that her religion prevented it, and her mind was closed. I realized, and had to accept, that her mind was going to be closed until she died. There was no point in hoping for anything to change. There was no hope for me to ever be close to her. It wasn't going to happen ; that she was going to walk into her grave in error. But I loved her. And look at the Southern Baptists. The LC is really no different than the SBC movement. Yes there are differences, like : The LC movement didn't start based upon taking a stand for slavery, like the SBC, but those kinds of differences don't really make a difference. Christendom is replete with movements that started in error; some of them, many actually, have flourished. It's good to be concerned for your family, but if you were concerned for all the others, you wouldn't be able to keep up. So looking at it from this perspective, the LC is no big deal. It's the same as all the others...even in intensity...look at Wahhabi Islam...can you be any more intense? It's certainly not that much different than the SBC. Would you have concern for your family if they were in the Southern Baptist church? If not, then don't be concerned for them being in the LC. Don't make a big deal out of it. Just love them, and honor their sovereignty before the Lord, as individuals that have their right to make decisions, even wrong ones. Life is full of psychological effects, and the LC is just one of them. Probably even a minor one, by comparison. Just love 'em brother, and love those you come in contact with. I've made friends with the Jehovah's Witnesses, that come to my door. I've come to know them, and their personal histories. Upon learning their history, it makes sense to me why they are in the JW. I've come to love them as human beings, as children of God. I can keep up with all the people I love ; all of them screwed up in some way. |
||||||
| 07-31-2009 08:23 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
I remember some of the other young guns in Dallas back in the mid 70s. (At a lesser level I was probably like that a little too.) It sort of reminds me of Dylan's "My Back Pages" — "Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now." I know I don't always sound like it, but no matter how much I think I know now, I realize even more how much I do not. And that gives me some pause concerning what I think I do know. |
||||||
| 07-31-2009 06:29 AM | |||||||
| YP0534 |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
that same fellow who started the thread you referenced? did you notice that final crack about exchanging Christmas gifts? That's not like any Local Church places I ever visited or heard about. I was always in Irving or Anaheim on Xmas eve. I didn't want to respond to it there because I don't want to make a big deal out of something like that but that's really inconsistent with the facts that I know. In general, Local Church people would be advised by their peers and elders not to engage in holiday gift giving which might distract those around them from the reality of Christ. A position which is not uniquely Local Church, either, of course, but for whatever reason, that fellow hasn't yet heard about the dangers of idolatry that surround him at the end of the year. |
||||||
| 07-30-2009 08:00 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
As I said, it is the false dichotomy. I was not intending to suggest that any of these were cults. Despite the fact that probably everyone would agree concerning Jim Jones and company, I wasn't even saying it about them. The whole purpose of my post was to state the things that truly concern me with respect to what being in the LC does to its membership from the perspective of what I see in those that I still see somewhat regularly, namely my family. Others may not agree with my observations, but they are my observations. I see actual harm, not physical but psychological. Some may think that only they can make that call for themselves. At some level, I disagree. Sometimes intervention is needed. |
||||||
| 07-30-2009 02:13 PM | |||||||
| YP0534 |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
I can state the same kind of obviousness but it doesn't mean anything other than the implications that must be intended. To me, the Local Church looks like the Southern Baptists in their use of the Bible. But even Jim Jones used the Bible so the Southern Baptists don't have a "get out of jail free" card either on that account. Unless you mean that the Southern Baptists are a cult! Yeah, I guess Jim Jones did it too, but I'm not sure why that's relevant. |
||||||
| 07-30-2009 10:39 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog On the other forum a relative newcomer has started a thread titled “Your concerns for local church members.” In it, this person asks and says the following: Quote:
I have omitted much of the post. And while I have chosen to refrain from active participation in that forum for some time, if not entirely, the question has given me reason to think again. I know that Unto does not like us to duplicate discussions from that forum here. But that is not my intention. I would like to provide as part of my blog, which is sort of like my personal space to think out loud and give somewhat unfiltered thoughts without the necessary intent of discussion, the thoughts that arose from this question. I have family members in the LC and I am concerned for them. I am not concerned that they will commit suicide, that they will become involved in drugs, or will be knowingly involved in criminal activity. But I actually see the psychological effects of LC membership on them. First, there is a form of idolatry, or at least a raising of things to places beyond where they should be. Even though they still pray to God and not to a man or an image, and even though they may not have bought into the “apostle of the age” or even the “minister of the age” or “oracle” thing, they clearly held Lee in such high esteem that whatever he said was accepted without consideration. During the one time that we had a lengthy discussion about the LC and some of the things going on there, my mother essentially said that we (meaning people in general) could not really understand scripture and that without Lee’s words she wasn’t sure what it meant. Even if Lee taught nothing but excellent, sound doctrine, that is not a healthy position to take, especially for someone who was fully capable of discerning the meaning of much of the scripture without too much outside help. If your source is almost entirely transferred from scripture and your own learning to that of another, are you sure what you believe is actually true? And if you believe a lie, then are you worshipping according to a lie. Does that equate to idolatry? I’m not sure. I wouldn’t take it as far as the fiasco of a year ago here, but it does give one pause to wonder. But it is in the abandonment to a less than ideal condition without a second thought that really concerns me. I have mentioned the months before my mother’s recent death when almost no one came around, and when my dad did talk to some of his more ling-time friends there, he was occasionally asked how things were going in one of those typical upbeat ways with one time getting a question like “How’s it going?” My dad had to respond “well, except for the fact that my wife is dying, I guess OK.” That really took the wind out of the brother’s sails. He was oblivious — not about the fact that my mother was dying, but to the fact that this could affect a good LC member and cause them to not be upbeat. In my Dad’s comments about different things, I keep getting this sense of a hollow cheerfulness that does not recognize pain and sorrow. It provides no hope beyond getting to more meetings where you can ignore your pain and get lost in another group high. Unfortunately, he sees it but is stuck with the "it's the only real place to be" mentality. And I understand that despite a good face with the family, my brother and his wife were essentially missing-in-action from their meetings for a significant period of time. When I learned this, I was floored because she managed to keep the most pro-Lee, toe-the-line LC culture home environment anyway. Why is it that the LC is considered so much the only way that even when you cannot bear to go to a meeting for weeks, or even just rarely attend, you would rather avoid other Christian association and remain like vagabonds with no connection to anything? I would be concerned about these things if they were being expressed from family attending a more mainstream church. If my dad was having these experiences with an otherwise sound Baptist assembly, I would express concerns about things at that place. If my brother and sister-in-law were so sold on their Bible church that they would rather avoid it when things got bad while putting on a mask of everything is OK, I would express concerns about what was causing that kind of devotion to something that was not meeting you needs. And I am concerned that Lee’s doctrines about waiting for more dispensing before trying to overcome that besetting sin, or more accurately, waiting for the level of dispensing to simply make the sin go away, are leaving good Christians with a hamstrung experience of sanctification while they chant over and over about how wonderful their church life is. I am concerned about where good counsel is to be found among people who only want to know the “Christ in you” and not your troubles. I am concerned about the couples who suffer from misconceptions of a healthy married life and are left to suffer quietly while hearing the male-dominated rhetoric of wives obey your husbands. In short, I am concerned that even with some cities having somewhat better experiences in some of these issues, there is an baseline of unhealthy lives being sacrificed to an unhealthy system in the furtherance of a self-defined “glorious church life” that cares about this corporate thing at the expense of the individual and their individual needs. I am concerned about a church that centers so strongly on praying for “thy kingdom come” but demeans prayers about your “daily bread” as pathetic or substitutes religious jargon as being the true food when tangible, edible, organic food is needed. And it seems that the hold is so strong that the problems with both the teachings and the experiences do nothing to dissuade as long as there is the belief that it is THE way and that all others are pitiful and even demonic. So I see the answer as chipping away at the very “truth” that they see in Lee in the hope that taking away his claim to a corner on the truth market might also take away the shine of the system and return the conscious mind to its rightful place in the process. I may not do everything in the best way. But in the face of the ways of the LC, I do not think that my ways are so faulty. Maybe when they are unproductive I should reconsider. But otherwise I think there is a worthy mission in speaking out concerning the LC. Yes, the members of the LC are encouraged to “read the Bible, to pray, to sing, to fellowship.” Those are laudable activities, even necessary ones. But that is not the sum of the LC. Even Jim Jones preached from the Bible. Don’t bother complaining about the over-the-top comparison. I am still not suggesting that kind of suicidal cult. Stop with the false dichotomies. Not being a suicide cult does not make everything OK. I am merely stating the obvious, and that is that even suicidal cults often have some sound doctrines and practices so finding them in the LC is not a “get out of jail free” card. That does not deny their error. The LC has sound doctrines and practices and is not about to join the suicide bandwagon. But they also have significant error and problems that cause me great concern with respect to its members, especially those of my own family. |
||||||
| 07-30-2009 08:20 AM | |||||||
| YP0534 |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
But we better watch out for too much agreeing around here. Makes some folks nervous for some reason. |
||||||
| 07-30-2009 08:01 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
So to look at the "immutable" word of God for a guide on what to do/say/be as we follow Christ is perhaps to miss the crucial point that the template experiences we are evaluating ourselves against are themselves only partly into the full reality of the risen Christ. I am basing my evaluation of the Acts and the Epistles of the Bible, illuminating the "early church" experience, on one verse, which is nestled in a section (John 14 - 17) going repeatedly into the idea of a progressive spiritual journey awaiting the disciples. That verse is John 16:13, where the coming Spirit of truth/reality is promised by Jesus as a guide, leading them into all the truth/reality. This to me bespeaks a process, not an "all at once" experience. So I evaluate the subsequent teachings/writings/acts of the faithful not for error, but rather as being only partly in the reality. It is a progressive experience. A child may occasionally err, but often simply is doing the best it can with limited experience & understanding. That way scripture remains consistent, as does the testimony of the disciples, but we allow it to grow, and ourselves along with it. Lee's example with James is not what I want to do: he seems to be saying here is an anomaly within the progressive revelation. Here is a regression back to the law, and works. This is an unkind take: James was on a journey like the rest of us. To dismiss his life and work as merely deficient is to dismiss the reality/truth, which as you point out is the word of God. I have earlier given the example of Jude, whom I for years regarded as "even more deficient" than James. A reactionary, with nothing positive to show us. Then one day as I was considering something else I remembered the word in Jude verse 6, about angels not keeping their appointed place, and my eyes were opened. I saw not only angels, but every spiritual entity (us believers included) being in peril in this regard. Jude, and James, and Apollos, and Paul, and all the rest, had spiritual journeys every bit as "real" as yours and mine. But I now evaluate them in the light of an expanding and deepening and purifying progression of our personal and collective experience of "reality", as exemplified in Jesus. Unless the scripture clearly points out "error" in the written record, I don't call it that so much as "only partly into the reality". |
||||||
| 07-29-2009 05:07 PM | |||||||
| YP0534 |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
It certainly doesn't reflect my thinking on such topics, anyway. I wouldn't say Lee dismissed certain scriptures in favor of his doctrine of God's economy. He organized all those scriptures under that superordinate. Rightly or wrongly, you can debate if you wish. But he doesn't "diminish" the word of God by means of his treachings of God's economy. I think he was overly harsh on James but God's economy was only the initial basis of his attacks. He went on and on and that's where things went wrong in my opinion. I've lifted James back to a more reasonable position post-Lee and honor him for his role, such as it is reflected in the whole of the New Testament. |
||||||
| 07-29-2009 03:02 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
You are quite right to note that there is a deficiency in the cases mentioned. But is it not that they are each in some way clearly out of alignment with the clear words of Christ. I suspect that we don't even need to get into the writings of Paul or others outside of what is recorded in the gospels to find the error in each of these. (I could be wrong as I will not pretend to have done enough research on the subject to make this a claim of certainty.) My point is not that "reality" is not a true or valid thing, but that to the extent that it might be seen as pointing to the error in something, it should also be found that there is scripture that agrees with that position. In other words, I'm not sure that we should accept some view of "reality" if it does not seem to be consistent with scripture. In Lee's case, there are places where he dismissed scripture because he found it to not be up to his version of "reality," most often in terms of "God's NT economy." I do not see this as a valid use or "reality." If we reverse Lee's lexicon, isn't "reality" equal to truth? "Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." What is truth/reality? The word of God. How then does reality diminish the word of God? |
||||||
| 07-28-2009 08:45 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
Quote:
For example, look at John's picture of the fall of Babylon. (Rev. 18:9-19). When I saw a satellite image of NYC after 9/11/01, I remembered the word of the merchants and sailors standing far off, and weeping because of the smoke of her burning. I mean, think about the terms: World Trade Center. The terrorists didn't strike some cornfield in Iowa, they attacked the center of world trade. "Cargo of gold and silver and precious stone and pearls and fine linen and purple and silk and scarlet, and every kind of thyine wood, and every vessel of ivory, etc, etc. " All of it, up in smoke. Now, John's word in Revelation chapter 18 helped me understand the attacks in NYC, but I don't think his remarks were only understandable in that context. I think rather he was pointing to a principle, a general trend of wealth aggregation and eventual loss. The rich guy swaggering down the street will eventually get a gun in his face. This is true to NYC, to Rome, to Jerusalem, to anyone who hoards treasure. So the believers in Asia who read his words could "hear what the Spirit is speaking to the churches" just as much as any of us could, with 2,000 years of history and interpretation guiding us. Quote:
When I admit that I am being subjective, I become slightly more objective. When I think I have objective reality in my grasp, I instead have nothing. But, I am saved from relativism by believing that there in fact does exist a true and objective reality, and this reality is knowable in Jesus the Nazarene, whom God has made both Lord and Christ. I am probably only partway there. Whether I am an inch or a mile away, I am not yet there; I struggle forward. Lee attempted to hold objective truth in his hands, and revealed instead a terrible narcissism that hurt so many who have tried to follow this path of vanity. Quote:
But beyond those seemingly hard and fast examples, I don't want to read too much, lest I myself be found to depart from the truth. I am subjective; I hope that my admission of such is a safeguard from going too far astray, and especially from leading others astray after me. |
||||||
| 07-27-2009 12:46 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog aron, You have moved into a significantly unsure area, namely what is meant by objective scripture and what is the place of revelation and the frame of reference of the reader. I will not attempt to respond to your post point-by-point, but by impressions. When it comes to objective scripture, I have generally come to understand that it is not subject to being overridden by other factors, whether cultural, historical, or even from claimed revelation. But having said that, I do not suppose that every aspect of scripture as recorded is a hard-and-fast rule that has fixed meaning, boundaries and interpretation. I often make reference to Nee, Lee and others taking words in scripture and then turning right around and telling us that they are saying something different than they actually do say. As an example, while I do not intend to get into a debate on the meaning of “One” in the trinity, when Paul said “ the last Adam, a life-giving spirit” he was not talking about a position in the trinity, but in a form of being — one that was responding to questions about what our resurrected bodies would resemble. So all of that certainty about “Christ becoming” is simply nonsense. It may be true, but that verse did not say it. Then comes revelation. I fully believe that we can and do receive revelation concerning how we are to live. We may receive revelation that is specific and even not actually contained in scripture. I would say that scripture says nothing concerning the restricted consumption of alcohol. But you may receive revelation to refrain in all cases. That does not actually contradict scripture, so for yourself it would be proper (and even imperative assuming that it is true revelation) to refrain. But as scripture makes no such prohibition, to make it ia point of teaching for others is not scriptural. But Lee took revelation to another level. There is written evidence of his taking scripture and stating that it is unnecessary to follow certain scriptures because they contradict his doctrine of “God’s economy” or other pet creations. This is not only to put non-scriptural restrictions on believers, but to put believers at odds with requirements of scripture. Then there is the interpretation from the perspective of the reader. This somewhat comes from a view of scripture as “telling a story” that is not always as significant in minute detail as it is in the whole of the presentation. While there are arguments for and against this view, I believe that it is at least somewhat valid. Within this kind of analysis, it might be less important to understand “what did John mean” in terms of specific words, phrases, and sentences, but in terms of the whole of his statements. While the specific statements are not made unimportant, they become subservient to the whole of what he is saying, just as Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians mentioned above were not about the make-up of the trinity but of the nature of the body He received upon resurrection. Context becomes important. And when we look at context, that may say something about part of the story being told. In the world cultures of the times of the patriarchs and the Jewish kingdoms, the mentality of the times was to seek revenge even for things that were originally revenge upon your own wrong perpetrated on others. And the sense of duty to seek revenge often succeeded through several generations. (If you think the Hatfields and McCoys were bad, read the OT again.) So we surely would not read scripture today to suggest that we should simply wipe our enemies off the face of the earth. Any such actions by God, or commandments concerning certain adversaries, such as in the taking of the Good Land, were never intended to be read as permanent primers on warfare. It might be reasonable to read those accounts metaphorically to suggest that we should “take no prisoner” when dealing with our own sin. But they were directions within a context. So what do you do when the context is a society in which women are considered property and are not provided education? You don’t allow them to teach. And that would be more clearly stated if there was a subculture of women who were the holders of power for a pagan cult in which the women were essentially the priests and gods. Do those statements mean that a women is forbidden by God to teach, both then and forever? Not entirely clear. When I read Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians, I can become confused. In one place he seems to allow them and in another to disallow them. Maybe it is not so clear. So when I come to the question in 2009, what is my context? Educated women who are too often more diligent in seeking after God than many of their male Christian counterparts. Dismiss any arguments about ambition because that is equally true of men, and you might be left with the sound conclusion that all who are willing and capable should be allowed. But, like much of the job of the rabbis for generations before and after Christ, the application scripture to today’s situation is never as simple as reading scripture to find an exact match. Here, there is a need for a different kind of revelation. The result is a reasonable pattern for applying what the prophets, apostles, and most importantly Jesus/God said to this life in this culture. While I do not suggest that the result is like modern scripture, at some level this is the process of rewriting scripture for today. In the world of the Emerging/Emergent church, there is a popular term — reimaging. To the extent that this means to seek to understand scripture as it is in the context of today, I fully agree with this. We are not required to practice Christianity like 1st century people from Asia Minor, but like whatever we are in 2009. But to the extent that it is meant as a way to rewrite scripture in a manner inconsistent with the unalterable truth within it, I must disagree. But as much as this, I believe that our faith is as much what we do and practice as what we believe. I do not mean practice in terms of religious rituals, but in how we conduct our lives. Some have questioned whether knowing actually precedes faith. I think that it is always in tandem, progressing from very rudimentary knowledge and action step-by-step through higher and higher levels as sanctification continues. Salvation may be by faith, but without ever seeing something in practical life, I will eventually doubt that faith. I will make one comment specifically on your post. You mentioned something being "only partially in the reality." While I understand what you are saying and mostly agree, this notion of there being a yardstick that is "being in the reality" is problematic, especially if it leads to something that is not consistent with scripture. I do not think that is where you are headed, but it is the terminology of the LC and they have clearly used that yardstick to create doctrine that is not only not supported by scripture, but even contradictory in some cases. Such a yardstick is subject to personal manipulation, whether willful or accidental. I return to the notion that even if you want to rank things based on "reality," first, it is subjective and therefore dangerous, and second, it must still align with or within scripture. Clear as mud? This is about as “set in stone” as a drop of oil on a wind-blown lake. I did not think that many examples would make it clearer since each would answer only its own issue and even tend to raise others. If I were to sum up my comments, I would say “Scripture is objective, yet is also is living and breathing. But while there is much to be revealed, it never says anything inconsistent with what is there to observe.” I will make one comment specifically on your post. You mentioned something being "only partially in the reality." While I understand what you are saying and mostly agree, this notion of there being a yardstick that is "being in the reality" is problematic, especially if it leads to something that is not consistent with scripture. I do not think that is where you are headed, but it is the terminology of the LC and they have clearly used that yardstick to create doctrine that is not only not supported by scripture, but even contradictory in some cases. Such a yeardstick is subject to personal manipulation, whether willfull or accidental. I return to the notion that even if you want to rank things based on "reality" first, it is subjective, and second, it must still align with or within scripture. Clear as mud? This is about as “set in stone” as a drop of oil on a wind-blown lake. I did not think that many examples would make it clearer since each would answer only its own issue and even tend to raise others. If I were to sum up my comments, I would say “Scripture is objective, yet is also living and breathing. But while there is much to be revealed, it never says anything inconsistent with what is there to observe.” But from this unclear position I believe that a dynamic faith that is accepted by all Christians (even if not on every jot and tiddle) exists and responds to the questions of today while remaining true to the underlying reality that is the unalterable Word of God. |
||||||
| 07-27-2009 10:38 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: Observation, Interpretation, and Critique Quote:
Therefore I find myself in somewhat of a dilemma. I feel free to criticise the authors of the source texts of faith as being only partially in the reality. Just because someone did something in the first century church doesn't mean we should try to emulate it today. We may or may not cover our heads, as prescribed by Paul, and we may or may not pray with anointing oil when ill, as recommended by James. On the other hand, I see others apparently reinterpreting texts away from original meaning, with the "light of history" as a guide, and I'm uncomfortable... I ask, "Fine, that's what the message is to you, today, but what was it originally meant when written?" I am thinking specifically of the enigmatic "revelations" of the apostle John which conclude the Bible. Nee said, if I understant him & Lee correctly, that the seven Asian assemblies were meant to stand for the seven "stages of church history" that were to ensue. Well, that allegorical interpretation may look good from the 20th century, but do we really think John meant to convey that to the Asian assemblies? And this goes as well for the many interpretations of "signs" to follow. "The woman on the beast is the RCC", etc. Is the truth so specific? Were John's words meant to be so enigmatic that only the centuries of ensuing history could unveil them? The Nee approach, in this application, seems to be the worst of all possible approaches. He says there is only one right view, and this view has been obscured until he, or the Brethren, or some similarly enlightened person came along. This thinking might even surmise that John himself didn't know what he was writing about, or that he knew and deliberately hid the interpretation from his readers. I argue that we can, and should, ask "What did John mean, and what did he intend it to mean to his readers?", because John uses the OT liberally. There is a shared basis of meaning, when he invokes one of the many OT visions, incorporated into his own message. I think that he is trying to "activate" certain "programs" or message strings, that those OT prophets had created in the shared understanding of 1st century jewish (believer?) culture. Anyway, it is a knotty problem, that of perspective, and I find myself circling the truth continually, going back and forth from "now" to "then", from my experience to my suppositions about the experiences of others, and trying to piece it all together. One thing I do know, is that I am profoundly distrustful of the "once and for all" interpretation of the truth as it came to me/us from Nee & Lee. They do seem to have a lot of "bonafides" in their claims, but the very fact that they trust them so implicitly makes me mistrustful of them. If they were more sceptical I would be less sceptical. |
||||||
| 07-24-2009 11:42 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog The measure of an education is that you acquire some idea of the extent of your ignorance. (Christopher Hitchens) |
||||||
| 07-24-2009 08:54 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Observation, Interpretation, and Critique On the Berean forum, “The Public Square,” there is a thread under GENERAL CATEGORY | Good Medicine, called “Quotable Quotes.” On 5/23/2008, someone posted a number of quotes by J.P. Rizal. The following is in post #109: Quote:
On the whole, his discussion and rankings make sense. But it is at the beginning and at the end that I take some exception. First, he says “those who copy the original directly are the thinkers.” I disagree. Working from an original does not make one a thinker. He is correct to point out that differences will occur because of the differing perspectives. But he has cast them with a fixed perspective. This is not a thinker. The thinker is the one who will walk around the statue and consider the different angles. He will look down from above, and up from below. He will observe shadows over different portions as sources of light change. Surely he will not see it all, or notice everything the same way another making the same set of observations will, but he is equipped to provide more than a two-dimensional view of the subject. Then at the end he suggests that no one can judge another’s view. This is both true and untrue. To the extent that the view is a statement of observation and therefore limited to that observation, one cannot judge the observation. But that does not mean that a view is correct merely because it is observed. If the observation is faithfully reproduced, much like a photograph, and nothing is presumed or extrapolated outside the observation, then it is a view of limited scope that is uncontestable. But to the extent that anything beyond that view is drawn, spoken or otherwise presumed, we have moved beyond the observation. Such a representation can be judged. It can be judged form the perspective of the portions that were not observed but upon which the “drawing” projects. Further, it can be judged to the extent that it is presumed that anything beyond the limited scope of the observation is possible. Further, to judge only if seen through the same eyes, with the same physical limitations, same light, and with the same taste in art is to eliminate the source of judging. If everything must be the same, its sameness mocks any claim of critique. Surely understanding one’s viewpoint is important, but it is not required in such an absolute manner. If it were, then where is the critique? All would be seen identically and all would be homogeneous. The review of a book could only be the words of the author. Only the artist would be qualified to rate his own work. Since no one else can match his view perfectly, their opinion would be summarily dismissed as invalid. In complaining about Rizal’s suggestion that identical viewpoint is required to critique, I do not mean to say that we should be free to do as a postmodern might and dismiss what one has written, drawn, sculpted, etc., and “deconstruct” it by supplying our own interpretation as the actual interpretation of the object of scrutiny. The interpretation and meaning is what the artist has created and intended. Any interpretation can only be with respect to what the artist has actually created and any critique or critique can only concern the validity of the thing expressed or the success in expressing it. So we turn to the analysis scripture and of the Local Church. In both cases, we too often find ourselves seated in front of a complex sculpture with varied lighting talking as if that perspective is the only one. Even those who see themselves as part of the sculpture (in the case of the LC) are actually in their own seat as if viewing from the outside. The rest of us may argue that faithful LCers are actually in a remote room seeing an image from a fixed camera that depicts exactly what the camera operator — the leadership — wants seen and understood. This is a point of contention. I will admit that almost all LCers have that fixed view, but also have some personal view, although it often is simply another fixed view just slightly askew with respect to the camera’s view. But just as I critiqued Rizal’s analysis of who are the thinkers, I (we) must always be walking around and looking at the sculpture from multiple angles and intentionally allowing different lighting conditions to highlight new aspects. Otherwise, we may be somewhat “right” to have left the LC, but are no more enlightened for the effort. Ultimately, there is something in every view. There is even something in so much of the thing that is the LC sculpture that we are studying. Christ is Life. There is a spiritual aspect to man no matter what you call it. Christ is a life-giving spirit. I’m just not sure that verse was meant to suggest that Christ is or became the Holy Spirit (i.e., the life-giving Spirit). I see much in this analysis. I often fail to act as if I see it. I am called upon it on occasion. I like to consider myself a thinker, even if a poor one. To maintain any link between my view of myself and reality, I need to keep looking, asking and considering, then moving, looking, asking and considering, then again moving, looking, asking and considering, etc. Part of seeing others perspectives is to listen and consider rather than simply argue against. You often see me in this posture when I try to be understood, coming back a second or third time with different words to portray my thoughts more clearly. Each of us should do this. But at the same time, just as I need to understand responses that suggest my point is missed (not merely disagreed with), I need to look into those responses for insight that I may be missing, or an angle that should be explored. No matter how hard I try, I do not have the entire sculture in view, even in my memory from my walks around it. |
||||||
| 05-20-2009 03:10 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
 )
|
||||||
| 05-20-2009 12:59 PM | |||||||
| UntoHim |
Re: OBW's Blog Sorry for the trouble OBW. That's one interesting spell checker you have there! Is that one of those Internet based spell checkers? Everybody has (or should have) editing powers for 12 hours. (example 12noon - 12midnight) I'll check into what going on asap |
||||||
| 05-20-2009 12:40 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: Rethinking my part here Quote:
|
||||||
| 05-20-2009 12:35 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Rethinking my part here I’ve been troubled for some time with the problem of exposing the errors that Lee introduced into the Local Church, and the serious acts of Lee and various of his underlings over the course of many years, without simply trashing the very existence of the Local Church as a group of assemblies. Without discussing the nuances of organization v organism, I intend “Local Church” or “LC” to refer to the group of assemblies that have sprung up by whatever method and are followers of the teachings of both Nee and Lee. There are arguments to be made concerning whether the LC, or at least that portion that holds strongly to all the materials published by the LSM, is a denomination. But as I have argued recently elsewhere, I find little significance in the determination that a group is or is not a denomination. There is now a clear split in the whole of that group, however, there are still many characteristics and teachings from Nee and Lee that remain in all such assemblies. To the extent that any particular item discussed by me applies to the whole of the LCs, I do intend it as such. But to the extent that the result of the recent split(s) has been to remove some of the errors from some, those are not presumed to be included. The problem with analyzing everything together as if it is a homogenous unit (Lee, Nee, other leaders, and the assemblies that comprise the LC) is that it is not entirely true. For example, I could I could analyze any particular LC assembly on several points and find many combinations of characteristics. Let’s consider The Church in ____. It is a composite of Christians, beliefs and practices as follows:
And despite my strong opposition to a certain thread here for reasons that did not include the stated purpose of the thread, some of the teachings and practices, even if mostly as the result of misunderstanding overstated hyperbole to be “a word for God,” have lead to actions by individuals in their dealings with their spouses, children, parents, coworkers, other Christians and even the general population that even the worst of the LC leadership would stand against. (Unfortunately, some of the LC leadership was involved in some of it.) Now when it comes to deconstructing the teachings that Nee and Lee pushed onto the LCs, there would surely be the discovery of teachings that we believe should be eliminated from the theological base of any church inside or outside of the LC. Whether that should be accomplished by simply rejecting Lee outright and then rediscovering truth or retaining Lee and trying to cleanse the errors is their decision. I do have an opinion about it, and have stated it repeatedly over the past years. But, I do not find anything in scripture that says that a church should simply throw out its understanding of scripture and start over because they might have some error in that understanding. But when it comes to accepting or rejecting Lee, I believe that the correct answer is to reject him outright. I believe that because, consistent with my analysis of his teachings and the fruit of those teachings, the tree is bad. (While less obvious, I actually believe that Nee is in the same position.) I do not believe that Lee stands with Paul, Peter, Apollos, etc., as a true worker on God’s farm and/or building. Instead of allowing Lee and Nee to remain in the company of the workers, they should be rejected as those who are teaching differently. In the case of Lee, there is also evidence that he was using his position in the LC to feed his belly, and the greed and lust of his sons. Such persons are not qualified to be teachers. The fruit of one church one city is the de-legitimization of all others and their denigration as “poor,” and even “apostate.” The fruit of “turning to your spirit” and “walking by the spirit” (rather than “walking by the Spirit”) is excuses for being the ones in Galatians that Paul said were indulging in the sinful nature. (Paul did not say get more Christ then you will stop. He said stop.) The fruit of deputy authority is gross misconduct accepted as OK because of the presumption that a deputy of God cannot sin. The fruit of following after a person is that such person’s errors become yours and the division from others concerning that person is your error. The list goes on and on. The fruit is clear. I believe that it says strongly to reject Lee, and less strongly to reject Nee. Then certain persons argue that we should just leave Lee alone and leave the churches that accept his teachings alone. While I do agree somewhat with respect to the churches, I do not agree with respect to Lee. To reject is to take a stand and reject. And to the extent that a church decides to not reject Lee, I believe that they should continue to hear the reasons to change their position. But the church itself is not necessarily subject to being closed and shuttered because it determines that its primary source of food was actually a cesspool. That determination can only be made by the people. If they determine that the church is too ingrained with the errors and that remaining together would simply perpetuate them, then closing may be the answer. But if not, I would not dare to demand that they close anyway. I know that my speaking here in opposition to many of the teachings and actions of Lee, and even the teachings of Nee (I cannot find evidence of errors in Nee’s actions), will at times bleed over into statements against the LC. My intent in that is not to condemn the many good Christian brothers and sisters who meet together in the LC, but to point to the systemic errors that have been institutionalized due to the decades of Lees’ teachings and the over-lording of his coworkers and now the BBs. And due to the willful perpetuation of many of Lee’s errors, many of those coworkers should be rejected as potential leaders of a “Lee-less” LC. And while we can at least wonder how they don’t individually see themselves as being “of Lee” we might also be able to understand that at the individual level they do not believe that to be the case. This has rambled on for long enough now. I was having one of those “what are you doing and why are you doing it” moments and thought that I would put it into my blog. I think that I have somewhat redefined my position and intent. I hope that it shows up in my future writing. |
||||||
| 05-19-2009 07:41 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: Advice to a Newly Married Couple Quote:
I agree with you that the home and the marriage is the place to practice loving your neighbor as yourself, and to fortify us for the man-on-the-street contacts. Even though spouses do in fact remain separate and distinct, they can practice caring for another person's well-being as much as they care for their own. I think it's very, very important to rest Paul's words upon the words of Jesus, as you have done. If we just examine Paul's words "in a vacuum" we can becom unbalanced (and yes, I do recognize Paul's words as from God). |
||||||
| 05-18-2009 01:55 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: Advice to a Newly Married Couple Quote:
I see a wedding as two things. First a public statement of a commitment to each other for life, then second, an invitation to join in celebrating that commitment with merriment. (Well, not as much merriment in a LC reception, but still the idea is there.) Spending a lot of time talking about oneness and Christ and the Church seems to be using a wedding as pretense to preach to everyone else. It seems upside down. Instead they should take a little bit of oneness theology and some "Christ and the Church" as something instructional to the couple for their practical marriage. Thanks for the comments. |
||||||
| 05-18-2009 12:13 PM | |||||||
| YP0534 |
Re: Advice to a Newly Married Couple Quote:
I went to a wedding this weekend as well. Roman Catholic couple. Very devout, although each in very different ways. Bride's brother was the officiating priest. His comments, when rarely applicable to the couple themselves, were more or less condeming of the groom and his charismatic Catholic family and their "home church." And he said an awful lot about "Christ and the Church." It was all terribly offensive, really, especially the pretenses made to unity with others while so strongly maintaining an exclusive table. |
||||||
| 05-18-2009 09:46 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Advice to a Newly Married Couple Interesting weekend. My nephew got married. Happened in the living room of my Dad’s house. (I was also married in the living room of my parent’s house ─ different house and almost 30 years ago.) We had my eldest son’s new fiancée with us and she had some interesting comments at dinner later. But that is not the purpose of this post. While the flow of the meeting was somewhat expected, although not significantly enough scripted for anyone to know what to do next at a couple of points, there was something missing. As is typical for a LC wedding, it was about 95 percent about the metaphor of Christ and his bride, the Church, and not much about the young couple. But it was not among the more extreme LC weddings that I have seen in the past. Well, when I said "not much about the young couple," that is not entirely true. There was an “open mic” time (without an actual microphone in that small space) and, with one exception, it was the relatives that spoke. They did mostly speak about the couple, or one or the other of them. But mixed in were the thoughts of their marriage being “for Christ and the church.” Even the guy who did sort of “officiate” said some good things, although he seemed to get lost. I had expected to see Jerry McGill, but something came up and he could not be there. I did not know the man who spoke in his place. (And given the speed with which I forget names, his has already eluded me.) He even seemed to be on the verge of saying something to the effect that they should not over-spiritualize it all, but never quite said it. Do not take this as a criticism of him. He was kind of thrown into this on a moment's notice. I spoke with him briefly afterward and found him very likable, as is Jerry. But given the tendency for LC traditions and teachings to lean toward a male dominated culture, I now wished I had taken the opportunity to say something. I know it would not be in the same way as the others, but I don’t think they would have openly objected. Given some time to think, here is what I am considering putting in a letter, or more likely, in an email, in the near future (with slight modifications to conceal the innocent). ----- Life for the next few days, weeks, and even months will have some resemblance to being on a tropical island with everything you need there for you to take and enjoy. But while you are focused on that, real life will be creeping in. One day you will actually notice that it is there around you. The imperfections finally show up. You will begin to wonder if someone stole your spouse, or at least part of them, and substituted a slightly different clone. She will not seem so much like the Bride of Christ and he will not resemble Christ. So what went wrong? Nothing. Scripture is correct when it says that we become “one flesh.” But that does not mean that we cease to be “two flesh.” It is not a contradiction, but is about different things. He is always who he is, and so is she. At the same time, there is a new entity that joins to be “married,” and do the things of marriage, including bearing and raising children. But this joint life does not end your separate life. And you will discover how real and strong those two separate lives can be. It does not matter if one of you is prone to being passive. The very act of being passive is often a tool of defense of who you are. “They may boss me around, but they can’t get inside of me.” Here is where notions of position and place collapse. If he wants to be the “head” he will fail. And as much as she wants to submit, it won’t happen. Instead, look at the whole of the verses in Ephesians 5. It begins in verse 21 with “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” This is the set-up verse. Then verse 22 begins with “wives, to your husbands,” and then verse 25 says “husbands, to your wives.” There are surely other words there, but these are the links to the primary command in verse 21. We have presumed that these verses create some sort of hierarchy between husband and wife. But instead they charge each to do the part that is theirs in submission to the other. I know it sounds funny, but consider that Jesus said that the true position of a disciple is as servant to all. That includes to your spouse. But instead of relying on Paul’s words (acknowledging that they are also God’s words), let’s look at those of Jesus. As part of His answer concerning what is the greatest commandment, Jesus actually provides two which he joins as a unit upon which all the rest are built. That second commandment is in Matthew 22:39 and it says “Love your neighbor as yourself.” It does not say to love them more than yourself. It does not say to love them almost as much as yourself. It also does not suggest that you should love yourself less, then love them that much. Now, the first thing that may come to mind is “since when is my spouse my neighbor?” When you look at the parallel account in Luke 10, we see that there was a follow-on question. It was “who is my neighbor?” The answer has resulted in a lot of different interpretations, but the best answer is that whoever you have contact with is your neighbor. Now who do you suppose a married person has a whole lot of contact with? If you say “my spouse” you have won the prize! So whether you want to say that Paul has simply said “love your neighbor who happens to be my spouse just like I love myself” in a different way, or you want to say that Jesus said to “submit to your spouse” in a different way, both are correct. And if you think that being a servant of all is only referring to serving the “saints” and not also referring to your spouse, and to all your neighbors, both those who live in proximity and those we come in contact with both physically and “virtually” in so many ways every day, then you have missed the meaning. Do not understand this as criticism of anything. I hope that this can be found as wise advice that will serve you as you journey through life together. I pray that it will strengthen your marriage as trials come. And they will come. I’m sure that no one else has suggested differently. Some may say that this is about equality in marriage. There is some truth to that. But it is much more. Marriage is a testing ground for living the Christian life. If I cannot raise my love for my spouse to be as great as I love myself, then how can I think that I love some other human at that level? If I cannot submit to the person that is right there at the first light of day and when the lights turn off at night, then how can I really be a servant to any others with whom I have even less connection? I trust that your love for each other will blossom further and further. But I also know that there will be trials. The kind of love that makes you blind to other things is not the love that will see you through the trials. It is the love that raises the other to be your equal that will see you through. It is the love that is willing to serve the other, even in the midst of heartache and pain, that will bring you through. It is the love that you choose and not the love that grows in your emotions. Emotions are fickle. But the love that comes from Christ is a love that can be chosen when the emotions are strongly contrary. Chose that love. It is the love that does not clang on cymbals or parade around to the sound of trumpets. Your uncle and your brother |
||||||
| 04-27-2009 11:06 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Removing the Colored Glasses Ohio, I fully understand your position, and predicament. You know that there are problems, but they do not automatically jump out because we intend to take a different viewpoint. And Nigel's articles are generally excellent. My comments to him at the others are not to stifle them, but to spur them on. I can’t find the reference at the moment (maybe in one of the forums or in some book I’ve recently read) but it essentially suggested that we are, to some degree, trapped in our historical prejudices and biases. In other words, the colored glasses that we wear cannot just be taken off in an instant to allow for a pure, unfiltered look at objective facts. This source was effectively suggesting that the colored glasses were at least partly stuck to our heads via some sort of glue that is not easily removed. Now I am not fatalistic enough to buy that notion in total. But there surely is some truth there. Yet at the same time, we do have ways to overcome these biases; tools that can help eliminate the tendency toward predisposed error. As you know from my previous posts, I left the LC in August of 87. Yet I have testified here of several things concerning which I have only recently had my eyes opened. You may recall in approximately Aug or Sep of 2007 I raised a question concerning what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor. 3, especially the middle part concerning the wood, hay, stubble, gold, silver and precious stones. I had come across this while reading through 1 Cor. for reasons having nothing to do with any of the LC discussions. As I read, I realized that the portions about following the various teachers was a long section that started in 1:10 (or so) and continued through part of chapter 4. As I was reading chapter 3, I was not thinking in terms of Lee’s teaching, but was simply seeing the full context of the chapter. Suddenly the words of 3:9 jumped out at me. Paul said “we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.” So I decided to find out who was “we” and who was “you.” It became clear that “we” was Paul, Apollos, Cephas, etc. ─ the men that the Corinthians had been arguing about. And “you” was the Corinthians. So when you move to the next verses which talk about building, there is a continuity between “we” who was the workers, and “you” who was the building. Now I acknowledge that we are unable to fully extricate ourselves from the truth of verses 10 through 15. But Paul was talking about the builders ─ the workers ─ not about the Corinthians who were what was being built. The point is that I came to the words as presented in the scripture. I came seeing words with their own meaning, connected by grammar that, while not totally unambiguous, takes the meaning of separate words and turns it into more complex meaning. But if I had come while allowing tapes of those convoluted, high-sounding things that we so often repeated when pray-reading, like “thank you Lord that your are the processed Triune God that we can build with to make our works approved,” or something like that, it would have caused my thinking about who these verses we're talking about to be converted from the workers ─the teachers ─ and into me. By allowing Lee’s teachings to too often be where we start (and I was still doing it regularly for almost a year after my first visit to the Bereans forum) we ignore the actual words on the page and the actual grammar and the actual context, substituting whatever it was that Lee said. It is for this reason that I feel compelled to vocally challenge the Concerned Brothers. While I do have confidence that they are headed in the right direction (and may even be further down that road than I am giving them credit), as long as the “writings” that we are concerned about going beyond continue to be Lee’s, we are misaiming. While I do attribute some of my alleged “wisdom” to age and experience, which I will note that others, including you and Nigel and many others also may have, I realize that with age can also come a tendency to close one’s mind to change. I do not pretend that at my best I could ever come up with as clear and sound a theological position as someone like Nigel can. But unless he and the other stalwarts keep the focus on the source rather than some intermediary, it may end up to only be a shift within an existing dogma rather than a truly liberating experience into the fullness of the gospel of Christ. It was in one of the Star Trek movies, The Wrath of Khan I believe, in which Lt. Saavik was chastised for quoting Starfleet regulations to Kirk. Later, after Kirk nearly got his head handed to him due to his ignoring those regulations, he said to Saavik something like “You keep right on quoting Starfleet regulations.” I probably have an even lesser position in these discussions, especially relative to the likes of Nigel and even some of the BBs and their technical resource people, but I am convinced from where the LC has gone that the quoting of Starfleet regulations (i.e., scripture and sound principles of using scripture) is too often necessary. When I do it and it is unnecessary, I can be ignored. And you do the same. When you see me wandering in a field mooing like a cow, following some rustlers in a pickup truck with hay in the back, slap me in the face. |
||||||
| 04-26-2009 12:17 PM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
We are not living in a vacuum. Some of us have a looooong context under one particular ministry. Some things have to be "unlearned" before progress can be made. For that matter, my wife and I are still "unlearning" ... When I first consecrated myself in the church in Cleveburg, it was before the Revelations training in 1976. That ministry prompted me to examine everything of my religious upbringing. It also gave me a desire to research church history related to the RCC. Eventually, I attempted to purge myself of everything I learned in the RCC (including 12 years of education) except for two things -- and only two things -- Jesus was the Son of God and the Bible was the Word of God. Many times thereafter I thanked the Lord for placing me in a Catholic home that gave me these two great truths, even though I never heard of regeneration, but that's another story. Nigel and his articles have been helpful in this regard. |
||||||
| 04-25-2009 09:11 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
Two-Foldness of Divine Truth For some time I have begun to look at the teaching that Lee put forward concerning “two-foldness of truth.” In Nigel’s article “LSM’s Eisegesis ─ How Not To Interpret The Bible!” he begins a section on two-foldness of divine truth. While there is nothing disturbing about the 10 “countervailing principles” mentioned, I do not find in these anything that is “two-folded” or potentially contradictory. As a matter of history in the Local Churches, I was a member in the Dallas area for 14-1/2 years, leaving in August of 1987. During this time, I heard the term “two folded,” or “two sides of truth” many times. But as I look back at the clear statements of scripture that were touted as two sides of one thing, I begin to see something different. Instead of two sides of one thing, I have begun to see two things that easily coexist without any appearance of being different sides of one thing. D.Q. McInerny writes a primer on logic, Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking (Random House, New York, 2004). In his chapter on Basic Principles, the fourth stated principle is the “Principle of Contradiction” which is stated as follows: “It is impossible for something both to be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.” (p.28) He admits that we sometimes hold contradictory ideas willingly because we either have not sorted out the truth from the fiction, or have not found the “respects” in which the two are different and therefore can coexist. But if we simply stop at accepting the contradiction and do not seek further to clarify or resolve, we have abandoned reason. “Don’t cloud the issue with facts. My mind is made up.” This is rationalization, which is “reason in the service of falsehood.” (p.29) While only read this particular book about two weeks before writing this post, the underlying truth of this particular area had been in front of me for many years, although I did not see it fully. When I was in college in the mid 70s, I took a course in business law which was taught by a lawyer. In the class was an older man who was presumed to be a career Army man who had finally retired but was too young to stay home. On several occasions as we discussed one particular area of law after another, this man would begin to ask questions. He would say “what if” one particular fact was altered, then another, and so on until the answer was no longer the same. He would then lean back, fold his arms, smile, and nod in a small up and down motion being sure that he had found a hole in the law. But it was not true. After changing enough facts, he was now presenting something that was either on the opposite side of the same rule, or had wandered into a completely different area of law. No contradiction. No problem with the law. Only a problem in trying to say that the facts now presented should require the same result as the original facts. Is this not a more honest observation about the “two sides of truth” or “two foldness or truth?” Are the pairs that Nigel presents truly contradictory? Or are they different because they are not talking about the same thing? For example, in your second point, “the apostles teaching the same thing in every church vs. the different teachings to each church depending on its condition,” I cannot see anything that would be “two sided.” When I consider “teaching the same thing” the first thing that must be answered is “what is the ‘same thing?’” Since Paul’s writings were different to each church and to each individual, “the same thing” must not be a reference to the details, but to the foundation of speaking. In everything Paul spoke in any place, or in everything that he wrote to the various ones, the foundation was the existing scripture, and the accounts given to him by others of Jesus’ words and deeds. While it is not entirely clear how Paul came to all of his understanding of the events and words that had transpired prior to his conversion other than to note that he was “off the grid” for some period of time learning, he is ultimately “on the same page” with Peter and the others with respect to his understanding of the gospel. Unlike those who came to places like Galatia to bring Jewish laws and rituals, he spoke from the New Testament revelation. In that, he spoke the same wherever he went. But that does not mean that he said the same words everywhere or covered all the same items (outside of the basics of faith). But even to the extent that he spoke different things, they were all consistent with the whole of the scripture and the gospel. Deciding to call this kind of different speaking within a common frame work “two-foldness of truth” is not necessarily bad. But it is not necessarily good. Why? Because through the constant creation of these “dichotomies” that are not really dichotomies, we begin to look for them. We begin to expect that one thing must have another side. In the example I mentioned above, there is no contradiction unless there are no facts except for “speaking” as a singular, unambiguous word and the reference to “always the same” in one place and the obvious differences in the things written to each place. Are those the only facts? Are we certain that “same” was meant to convey that the same words were used? Or was it used to convey that all of the principles came from the same unwavering source — scripture and the words and deeds of Christ? I note that when we look at church discipline in Matthew 18, man is ultimately required to judge because he must decide to exclude someone from the circle of believers. Yet elsewhere Jesus said “judge not lest ye be judged.” Are these contradictory? Or are they in different contexts with different facts? Surely we are to judge and know error. But we are also supposed to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Witness Lee has been quoted as saying that the truth must have chaos. (I do not have the reference in front of me, but when I first heard this, I asked on one of these forums and Steve Isitt pretty quickly provided it.) This has been given as rationale for some of the wrongs that were occurring at that time within the Local Church leadership. But is this statement true? Or is it a fabrication created and accepted because we have become used to the very idea that “truth has two sides” and that contradictions are to be expected. With a clearer head, I now realize that there is only a contradiction when facts are missing, overlooked, or miss-analyzed. Once all facts are on the table there is only one clear truth. There may be other truths that relate to some of the facts or to a different context, which is itself a fact. But to expect that there will be a yen and yang sort of two sides to one thing is illogic and by definition false. To make the statement that truth has two sides is to distort truth and to deny it. If one thing is true, its opposite is not also true. If we think that we have found two things that are contradictory yet both true, then we have not determined the differentiation between the two, or we have not taken the time nor energy to disprove one of them and label it as false. “Speaking the same thing” to everyone is not contradictory to speaking in a specific and different way different ones if “the same thing” is a reference to the whole source from which all the speakings are taken. If I teach law in a university (I do not), I speak from the whole of the law. But if I also sit as a judge in a court, I apply specific portions of that law to different facts based upon the existing rules of procedure and come to the conclusion that one defendant is guilty, while another is innocent. This is not “two sides of truth.” There is no contradiction. The law does not say that all are guilty or that all are innocent. It says a whole wealth of things from which separate and different results arise once facts are added and the applicable portions of law used to analyze those facts. Even when we say that there are two sides of salvation, one that is by grace and one that is worked out with fear and trembling, there is not a contradiction. Rather than giving conflicting sides of the same thing, we have used one word to label two things that are different. While this may not be a theologically correct statement, I tend to view these as a kind of equivocation in which one use of the word is more like “redemption” while the other is more like “sanctification.” I will concede that we do not understand the predestination of God in the context of a freedom of will to accept or reject. But even this may be more of our own limitation to linear thinking in a three-dimensional world of physics, biology, etc. and a lack of understanding of the spiritual world outside of even time as we know it. There are surely mysteries of even the physical universe that we cannot explain. Even more so are the mysteries of God that He has not revealed. But this need to find “two sides” seems more of a yen and yang view of the world than something revealed in scripture. And it leads to error. It leads us to accept the idea that there can be truly contradictory truths and then take ones supplied (such as by Lee) without questioning. That is reason in the service of falsehood. |
||||||
| 04-24-2009 12:16 PM | |||||||
| OBW |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
You may be correct that Nigel is looking beyond Nee and Lee, but what I have read so far (and it is mostly the older posts from 2005 - 2007) it would seem to be more in the line of defending a different Lee than the one the LSM is propping up. I do not doubt that the BBs have made things out of Lee's teachings that weren't actually there. But too much of it was there. It was even there in the 60s and we bought it in our craving for something "new" in a sea of Christianity that was not yet awake to the groundswell of discontent within its ranks. Now I have seen some of John Myer's thoughts in his book. And I note that there was concern that he was moving too fast for some. For those who have become accustomed to getting around in the dark, to suddenly switch on the light is brutal on the eyes and causes many to cover their eyes to avoid it. I do think that Nigel's intent is good and honest. But the things I have seen so far tell me of some amount of blindness caused by starting from Lee rather than scripture. Once that is too ingrained, it is easy to read the verse and assume the meaning Lee gave even where it should be painfully obvious that is not correct. My goal is not to shame anyone, or set myself up in some manner. I actually presume that this will be the ultimate course of action for them. But I know that it has sometimes taken someone else pointing out my errors to make me face them. I do not expect them to comment back to me or to acknowledge my existence. I actually have no expectation. I only have a hope that what I say might be found worthy of consideration. I have another to post soon. It takes aim at something that I have even said as true within the past 4 months or so. I will not say more now. |
||||||
| 04-24-2009 11:03 AM | |||||||
| AndPeter |
Re: OBW's Blog Quote:
I believe Nigel and others are re-evaluating Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. Consider his latest article about the Jerusalem and Roman city churches. Even Undergrace on the other forum pointed out some inconsistency with Witness Lee regarding his view of the early universal church. I think Nigel's and others intent is to re-evaluate based on the Word with help from writings (from many) that aid the understanding. Since we have been under such a strong Nee/Lee influence for many years I believe Nigel finds it appropriate to comment where he finds teachings of these two that no longer hold water. Steve |
||||||
| 04-24-2009 08:23 AM | |||||||
| OBW |
OBW's Blog I looked at this feature for the past week and wasn't sure what to do with it — if anything. But as I began to read through some of the articles on AFathfulWord.org, posting some comments on a couple of them on the other forum, I noticed something that I thought was worthy of speaking out about. One of the Buntain/Sady/Towle articles referred back to Nigel’s comment about going beyond what is written, I believe concerning whether Minoru Chen had incorrectly claimed to say what Lee and/or Nee had said. (I don’t have the particular article in front of me, but I did comment on it in the other forum’s thread concerning that particular LSM site.) The thing that stuck out to me was not whether Chen had improperly extended Lee beyond what he had said, but that the standard being discussed was not scripture, but Lee. Even Nigel was doing it. Now I will not say that there was no discussion in either related to scripture, but there were three paragraphs from "Practically Speaking, for Us the Body Today is Just the Lord's Recovery"—Did Minoru Chen "Go Beyond What Has Been Written"? near the end, starting with one from Nee, followed by two from Lee. In the last one, out of Further Consideration of the Eldership, the Region of Work, and the Care for the Body of Christ, pp. 14-15, Lee says the following: “You may have the thought that your local church has nothing to do with other churches and should not be in any connection with other churches. This thought isolates your local church, making it no longer a part of the Body of Christ.” Looking back at Nigel’s article and at this one, I note that no one has questioned Lee’s actual statements. But are they not themselves something “beyond what is written?” The verses that were mentioned say things like “the church which is His body.” They do not say “those churches which follow certain principles and meet for 7 feasts each year are His body.” I will admit right from the beginning that I am no theologian in the strictest sense of the word. But I am a student of scripture and of logic and reason. I do not flatter myself to think that I have figured everything out and these others have not. But when I read the lengthy write-up on the charge against Titus Chu that included complaints about how he taught young ones in Taiwan to study the bible, I guess I expected better. What I am referring to is the time that Titus spent in Taiwan teaching the young ones to get out their bibles, dictionaries, commentaries, and after exhaustive studies read the ministry to see that it was correct. But despite his words and efforts, it would appear that almost no one has done that because to the extent that I have, I am finding that the ministry is not nearly so correct. I challenge Nigel and the rest of those who consider themselves concerned to take a new approach to their disagreements with the LSM. Rather than presume that Lee was right (and even Nee was right) and that the LSM is now twisting those words, start fresh with the actual writings that we should not be going beyond ─ scripture. Intentionally reject Lee’s words and see if the scripture will return you to his teachings. Read the older books again and see whether he actually used scripture to support his premises, or used scripture to dress his own premises up with the appearance of support. I wrote somewhat extensively concerning the very foundational errors in the first chapter of The Economy of God on the other forum some months ago. 1 Timothy 1:3-4 does not say to teach God’s economy. The entire first chapter makes this leap. But the verses (paraphrased) say that wrong teachings result in questionings while correct teachings result in God’s economy. The wrong teachings were not questionings. They resulted in questionings because they were contrary to the right teachings. The right teachings resulted in the entirety of God’s administration, economy, plan, etc. happening. They were not themselves God’s economy. And read the first chapter closely. Lee never provides a basis for his conclusion that God’s economy is “simply” God dispensed into man. He uses an oratorical trick to get everyone to accept it. He says that an exhaustive study of the entire bible will show it. But he provides not one single example. It is to be accepted without question. Why do this in the blog instead of a public thread for others to discuss? First, because my goal is not necessarily to create more discussion here on this forum, but to challenge some who may read this, but are not otherwise participants. Second, I have found that as much as I like this kind of discussion, there are only a few others and they simply tend to agree (mostly) resulting in little discussion. I note that even on the other forum where there are more vocal opponents, they tend to snipe with blanks once or twice and then avoid acknowledging it is even there. So why bother? This way I can put in out there to view. If it moves anyone to start a discussion, that’s great. But greater would be that it starts some to rethink their positions. |
||||||
