Quote:
Originally Posted by Thankful Jane
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]
One problem with Lee’s teaching about the LGS is that it has the potential to leave people with a wrong understanding about how to walk with God. It leads down a path where people lose sight of the fact that they are free moral agents in their walk with God.
Thankful Jane
|
Some disjointed thoughts in response:
Every truth has two sides. Experience can cause us to come down more heavily on one side versus the other. My experience has cause me to come down heavily on both sides – at different times – and thus I am continually open for the Lord to caution me, to redirect (and that, often through others).
I want to relate a quick story that ties in with what you have said here about our free agency:
About two years ago I had a brief correspondence with one of the BBs. I wrote with many searching questions. He responded with a lengthy and tender response. But one of the things he said in his reply was “I sense some angst in your tone.”
I was immediately offended, but after much consideration before the Lord, I realized he was right. I was FULL of
angst. Not “angst” in the black-wearing, Mohawk-having, rebellious-for-its-own-sake sort of teenage “angst” – but rather in the sense of “angst” spoken of by Soren Kierkegaard: a deep-rooted spiritual condition of fearing one is failing in his responsibilities to God. It is a condition unique to free beings.
I have felt this angst in two separate directions – one which mirrors the emphasis that you bring and one which cuts the other way.
First, I felt as though so many of the teachings – particularly those related to deputy authority etc… - had stolen my individual accountability to God –or actually, that I had freely handed it over to others. I had lost my personal accountability and relationship with God. I have said before, as you do now, one of the biggest detriments of many of the LC teachings and practices is that it trains a believer to hand over his/her responsibility and accountability to God.
The other sort of “angst” is really just that condition of which Paul speaks in Romans 7: the deep sense that you utterly cannot do it. You know God’s requirements, you think that you are putting your whole person into them, and you do the exact opposite. So debilitiating.
Have you ever read Nee’s “The Overcoming Life”? I can’t read it. I am such a wretched Christian when I read it. I know too well my lack, my weakness, my failings. My inabilities to love, to forebear. My conscience slaps me around daily. And I can’t change. Perhaps I am one of the derelicts God just can’t work with…
In the midst of this angst, I cannot tell you the encouragement that comes from knowing that the Spirit that indwells is the same God who lived the human life in the midst of the same limitations and weaknesses that befall me. Christ went through all of those experiences, not just so that he could have “standing” before the Father as our advocate, and not just so that we could read about Him and imitate His example. I can’t just “imitate.” I don’t know how to pull myself up by my bootstraps. Fortunately, it is not I, but Christ who lives in me! This does not absolve me of accountability and engagement with God in this life He has given me. On the contrary, He calls and I respond. But it is His Son in me that responds. I must work out my own salvation. But He is both the willing and the working.
It is important for my subjective going-on (if only because I have a weak faith), to know that the power of the Spirit who indwells me is the power of One who has experienced the limitations and weaknesses which constrict me but who prevailed nonetheless.
I can believe all of this and still reject the mechanistic “eating” teaching which can steal away a believers individual relationship and responsibility to God.
It really shouldn’t be a secret for any of us whether we are failing our responsibility to God. It is know – not by the underlying doctrines – but by the fruits. I’ve held correct doctrines, but misapplied them in my life. The fruit? None. There have been times when Lee-style “eating” has filled me with a joy that just emminated. Most of the time, it is the constant interaction with God – real questions, opening up, considering, reading His word thoughtfully and with questions to Him – which produce good fruit in my life. Knowing what the fruits should be is a lot like the law which convicts. When our life is not full of fruits (I don’t mean in any narrow sense) – that is opportunity to return to Him, to question, to let Him expose our hearts, our practices, our assumptions about Him. Insodoing, He does transform me – by the indwelling of the One who has already done it.
None of that
requires nor
refutes Lee’s “eating” doctrines. The “processed God” stuff and the “eating” doctrines are separate.
I have no problem dropping the terminology. But there is an identity between the Spirit and Christ which goes further than traditional “person” distinctions: one which explains that, though it is the Spirit that indwells me, I can still be assured that the One who indwells me is the same one who was able to obey God regardless of the limitations, weaknesses and temptations of the human life. That is the One who fulfills God’s requirements, not me. And He does so
as I live my life with Him, not simply through "mechanisms" and "intake".
I have more thoughts, but I think that's enough for now. Grace to you,
Peter