[OBW]

The problem with the whole thing is not that there is a NT priesthood, or that there are not specific things spoken concerning the actions that Mary took, but that there is a presumption that you can just find a common word or idea and force them together. In effect Nee and Lee (and now you) continually ran all over the scripture forcing things together that do not clearly go together and declaring that it is so. They created directives.

In effect they created more law than the law had. There are now more hurdles to jump through to arrive at "genuine NT fellowship" than it took a really good Jew to keep in good standing with God in the OT.

NT "sacrifices" become more convoluted than those in the OT. But the evidence is that simply presenting your body — not as something special off-line, "in the Temple" kind of thing, but as a tool at His disposal in everything we do — is the real sacrifice.

And the NT repeats the OT declaration that obedience is desired more than "sacrifice." Now it is clear in the context of this statement, both in the OT and the NT, that "sacrifice" is talking about overt acts of worship. You know, things like bringing bulls, rams, lambs — or things to show-and-tell in worship.

That does not mean that those things are despised or denied and rejected. But they have their place and it would seem to not be the primary thing.

Instead, the main thing is still the main thing. God's people bearing his image in the world. Obeying his commands rather than arguing them away. Being righteous and just in all that they do. It would seem that this was God's desire from the very beginning.

Despite the relatively short bit of ink given to the pre-fall lives of Adam and Eve, there is no clear time line for that era. But the little account given would make it seem that the main thing about their lives was caring for the garden according to God's command. The time that God actually spent with them in direct fellowship would seem to be rather short by comparison.

When you return to God's desire for obedience ahead of sacrifice, it would seem that his real desire is for humans to be according to their created position — busy obeying his directives. And those directives are not much about how we "worship" or have meetings. Or how we lavish praise upon God. Yes, there is a place for this. And it is not insignificant. But it is not the goal of life.

In fact, I sometimes wonder if that old line from, among various places, the Westminster catechism, "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever" is true — or at least is not understood correctly. I just looked it up and some of the verses attached to it and there is a hollow ring in the way that it is so often heralded. Most of the verses refer to God's glory and in a couple, to some of that glory being given to Jesus, then it is also given to man (that they may be one). But none of these make that man's "chief end." Such a claim of ranking is not found in anything that is supplied as support for the little question in the catechism.

The real question is, how is it that we glorify God? By having better worship services? By being more doctrinally correct? By having better songs? By doing better penance? By doing more evangelism?

I would assert that the answer is "none of the above" or anything else like it. Instead, glorifying God really occurs when we live life as God directs, the world takes note and we attribute our lives to his life rather than our own. When God is seen in the earth through his people as truly righteous, just, honest, etc., and is actively loving their neighbors.

When that happens, it will not matter how "high" or how "low" anyone thinks their mode of "worship" is. God will be glorified and praised.

Now, if you want to assert that we will fail to be those righteous representatives if we don't start with God, I will agree. But I do not find that there is some prescriptive means of "ministry" or "service" to God that this entails. One of the ways Paul puts it is "setting your mind." And "walking according to." Yes, we will not do either of these simply because we want it to be so. It is going to require some kind of dealing with God. It does not fall on us. But it is also not some kind of special "ministry to God" that has the kind of nearly over-the-top appearance of priestly service within the Temple or of Mary's pouring out the oil on Jesus. Not "dissing" either. But they are not given a patterns for worship. In the case of Mary, it was something special. Her act is declared to be a memorial to her, not the pattern of the first of many such acts.

The real thing is that Nee's "discovery" and so much of what springs from that and from the rest of his and Lee's ministries are more complicated lives, not simplicity in Christ. I watched a few minutes of the news this morning in my hotel room and saw a procession of Cardinals heading out of the chapel to get lunch, two abreast, spaced and moving so perfectly. How much more difficult was it to meet all the criteria put upon us by our LRC taskmasters that constantly told us that we were learning things that were beyond us. That we had "premature knowledge" of things, so don't worry about them yet. (Which, of course, put us into an inner turmoil about how poor we must be.) Who were constantly being berated for not being up to par on issue after issue.

We do need to take stock of our lives at times. But we mainly need to set our minds and step out in faith. Walk in the Spirit. Give the glory to God.

Such a booklet as "Ministry to the House or to the Lord" misses the mark. It is, as is too common in LRC theology, too focused on ethereal and "spiritual" things and is nearly of no earthly good. The main ministry is to the earth. To our fellow man. That is our daily life. It is where we are day by day. It is the primary place of ministry. Not in or around the Temple.