Local Church Discussions - View Single Post - The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church

NeitherFirstnorLast · 01-02-2013, 06:56 PM

Chapter 4 Cont'd: On Lee's Doctrine of Mingling

The God-Men pages 92-94

"Witness Lee also tends to view God's creation of humankind as a... neccessity.... Lee stresses the "economy" of God's historical dealings as springing from God's desure to unify humankind with himself.

'Thus, the three Persons of the Trinity become the three successive steps in the process of God's economy. Without these three stages, God's essence could never be dispensed into man.' (WL, The Economy of God, pg 10).

Related teachings in Lee's writing lead on toward a distorted view of why God made the world. Did God create the world not only to enrich His creation with His own essence, but also to enrich Himself? Lee presents God as needing to absorb humanity into Himself through a process of "mingling"...

One LC publication is entitled "The Testimony of Church History Regarding the Mystery of the Mingling of God with Man." Surveying Christian doctrine, it cites many theological writers on the union of divine and human natures in Christ. It also deals with the union of believers with Christ, for which some writers have employed the term "mingling". Indeed, some have even called the latter union "deification". Bill Freeman expects his readers to be patient with Witness Lee's doctrine, since Lee is dealing with a mystery the same way others have done. (Freeman, Testimony of Church History, pages 5-6). Mysteries do defy definition, but one should be hesitant about using terminology that has largely been shunned by the church as heretical. Freeman acknowledges that the term "mingling" has been a "theological pariah" for centuries (pgs 14-21)...

Witness Lee and his disciples resemble some of the mystical writers of the Eastern churches. They overemphasize one side of the mysterious union of God with His people at the expense of equally true and important aspects...

The problem with the LC publication on mingling begins with its emphasis that a mystery (by definition) cannot be exhaustively expressed in rational or conceptual terms. As used by the LC, the proposition that "the mystery of union with Christ cannot be pinned down" turns into a polemical tool (a tool for attacking a doctrine). It is used to discredit traditional approaches to the mystery, not so much to acknowledge the mystery's unexplainable quality as to explain it in Witness Lee's terms.

*********************

Duddy's refutation of Lee's doctrine of mingling is balanced, fair, and succinct. He acknowledges that a version of what Lee teaches was taught in some of the early churches (in fact, Athanasius of Alexandria is frequently trotted out, with this very brief quote (offered without context, source, or time) attributed to him: "Christ became man so that man might become God, or gods, or divine, or exalted.*" The latter half of this quote, here in italics, is left out of LC literature.

But what did Athanasius mean by this statement?

Athanasius clarified this statement in his third treatise against the Arians: "To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.'' "There be one Son by nature...we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that calleth, and though we are men from the earth, and yet called gods, not as the True God or His Word.... We are sons, not as the Son, as gods, not as He Himself. '' (Orat 3.19-20; Robertson 404-405). Similarly, in Orat 1.37 he briefly noted that "we are children by grace, not by nature. We are like the Son not in essence but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him'' (De Syn 53; Robertson 479).

If we cannot be gods by nature or essence, in what way are we to be like God? "We are as God by imitation, not by nature'' (Orat 3.20; Robertson 405). Jesus did not mean "that we might be as God,'' but that we should imitate him (Orat 3.19; Robertson 404). "Albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God'' (Ad Afros 7; Robertson 492).

This treatise of Athanasius', now put in it's proper context, reveals all too clearly that Athanasius is not an ally of Lee's - but rather that he would reject completely Lee's theology: man cannot become God in life and in nature or in the Godhead; but can, through His grace, imitate His righteousness.

Now you know the REST of the story.

Information on Athansius quotes in context supplied by http://www.angelfire.com/md/mdmorris...t/DIVINIZ.html

01-02-2013, 06:56 PM	#321
NeitherFirstnorLast Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 348	Our Reading Continues Chapter 4 Cont'd: On Lee's Doctrine of Mingling The God-Men pages 92-94 "Witness Lee also tends to view God's creation of humankind as a... neccessity.... Lee stresses the "economy" of God's historical dealings as springing from God's desure to unify humankind with himself. 'Thus, the three Persons of the Trinity become the three successive steps in the process of God's economy. Without these three stages, God's essence could never be dispensed into man.' (WL, The Economy of God, pg 10). Related teachings in Lee's writing lead on toward a distorted view of why God made the world. Did God create the world not only to enrich His creation with His own essence, but also to enrich Himself? Lee presents God as needing to absorb humanity into Himself through a process of "mingling"... One LC publication is entitled "The Testimony of Church History Regarding the Mystery of the Mingling of God with Man." Surveying Christian doctrine, it cites many theological writers on the union of divine and human natures in Christ. It also deals with the union of believers with Christ, for which some writers have employed the term "mingling". Indeed, some have even called the latter union "deification". Bill Freeman expects his readers to be patient with Witness Lee's doctrine, since Lee is dealing with a mystery the same way others have done. (Freeman, Testimony of Church History, pages 5-6). Mysteries do defy definition, but one should be hesitant about using terminology that has largely been shunned by the church as heretical. Freeman acknowledges that the term "mingling" has been a "theological pariah" for centuries (pgs 14-21)... Witness Lee and his disciples resemble some of the mystical writers of the Eastern churches. They overemphasize one side of the mysterious union of God with His people at the expense of equally true and important aspects... The problem with the LC publication on mingling begins with its emphasis that a mystery (by definition) cannot be exhaustively expressed in rational or conceptual terms. As used by the LC, the proposition that "the mystery of union with Christ cannot be pinned down" turns into a polemical tool (a tool for attacking a doctrine). It is used to discredit traditional approaches to the mystery, not so much to acknowledge the mystery's unexplainable quality as to explain it in Witness Lee's terms. ********************* Duddy's refutation of Lee's doctrine of mingling is balanced, fair, and succinct. He acknowledges that a version of what Lee teaches was taught in some of the early churches (in fact, Athanasius of Alexandria is frequently trotted out, with this very brief quote (offered without context, source, or time) attributed to him: "Christ became man so that man might become God, or gods, or divine, or exalted." The latter half of this quote, here in italics, is left out of LC literature.* But what did Athanasius mean by this statement? Athanasius clarified this statement in his third treatise against the Arians: "To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.'' "There be one Son by nature...we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that calleth, and though we are men from the earth, and yet called gods, not as the True God or His Word.... We are sons, not as the Son, as gods, not as He Himself. '' (Orat 3.19-20; Robertson 404-405). Similarly, in Orat 1.37 he briefly noted that "we are children by grace, not by nature. We are like the Son not in essence but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him'' (De Syn 53; Robertson 479). If we cannot be gods by nature or essence, in what way are we to be like God? "We are as God by imitation, not by nature'' (Orat 3.20; Robertson 405). Jesus did not mean "that we might be as God,'' but that we should imitate him (Orat 3.19; Robertson 404). "Albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God'' (Ad Afros 7; Robertson 492). This treatise of Athanasius', now put in it's proper context, reveals all too clearly that Athanasius is not an ally of Lee's - but rather that he would reject completely Lee's theology: man cannot become God in life and in nature or in the Godhead; but can, through His grace, imitate His righteousness. Now you know the REST of the story. Information on Athansius quotes in context supplied by http://www.angelfire.com/md/mdmorris...t/DIVINIZ.html