Before I pick back up on my previous thoughts, let me interject something in concert with what aron wrote.
The body of Christ is a very real thing. It is the church — all of if. But the body of Christ was something smaller than the whole church in Lee's theology. He may get every Christian into it by the time of the new Jerusalem. But he preached an exclusive, less-than-all body prior to that point in time (actually when time is no more). This is one of the clearer manipulations of the meaning of the various terms found in scripture. It is so clear that all who call Jesus their Lord are members of the body, yet Lee excluded the vast majority of the body because they did not follow him and send their donations to his coffers and buy his, and only his books.
And further, what Lee thought of the subset of the body that he claimed was the whole is further distorted when it is insisted that it be "identical" to every way. According to his teaching, there could be no need of the differentiated gifts received from the Holy Spirit. He would never say it that way, but if they are derided for having any kind of ministry of kindness to other than the "saints" (meaning those in his group) in need, then where is the compassion? Where is the love for neighbor as self?
Quote:
Originally Posted by immuno_oncology
3. The concept of "God's eternal economy is for the building of his dwelling place which will consummate in the New Jerusalem" has been wrought into my soul. For the past few months, all I think about everyday is Christ and His Body and nothing else. Are you still under the rulership of this particular heavenly vision of God's economy?
|
I return briefly to this item to state that Lee's understanding of the thing that is the vastness of "God's economy" is not a heavenly vision. It is a corruption through the exclusion of so much of what it should (and actually does) contain, and is also used as the excuse to set aside even the words of Jesus. After the resurrection, When salvation was fully accomplished, Jesus told the disciples to disciple others, baptize them, and to "teach them to obey all that I have commanded you." Yet declaring that obedience to the law was a more stringent thing that what the teachers of the law say was set aside as "fulfilled, therefore not applicable." And in Matthew 5, Jesus said that anyone who taught less than the whole law of righteousness was least in the kingdom of heaven. Yet Lee would use "God's economy" as both the reason and the way to avoid strict adherence to the righteous law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by immuno_oncology
4. Tripartite man - I was taught that understanding the spirit is the key to everything. Do you guys still "turn to your spirits" and reject the self in order to express Christ, Christ and Christ only? As an example, I was frequently taught that human improvements don't matter because only Christ fulfills the highest standard of morality, so all we need to do is "call on the name of the Lord and turn to our spirits!" I was also told that before we were saved, the soul is our person and the spirit is an organ. But after we're saved, the spirit is our person and the soul is our organ, for the purpose of expressing the spirit (Christ).
|
I have discovered that the "parts of man" are not the source of anything good. Even the so-called spirit of man is not the source. It may be the connection, or at least the initial ground of entry. Buy if I spend my time thinking about my spirit rather than the one who lives in it, then I have created yet another idol. It is a little like praising and singing to the thermos for carrying the water that you need to drink to survive.
My younger son is a runner, camper, hiker, and mountain climber. He drinks lots of water. He has some rather serious water containers. Nothing that will break easily if it bangs against a rock wall. But if one breaks, he just gets another one. The thermos is for the water. He does not cherish his thermos. But he needs what it carries. His only concern is not that the thermos is there, but that it is full of water.
And this "spirit is our person" notion sounds great. It seems lofty. But where does it come from? Man, as created, was to bear the image of God. The image of God is not a genie in a bottle, but the righteousness of God lived out in our practical living. And practical living is on the street, in the office, in the home, in the marketplace. And we are commanded to live righteously in this, not to get spiritual, and get enough dispensing (Lee's basic economy — not God's).
Quote:
Originally Posted by immuno_oncology
How do you guys pray after leaving the LC? Do you pray to the Lord Jesus or the Father in Heaven? Do you amen after every phrase when someone else is praying?
|
I pray. Having an amen that I cannot control is not spiritual. Just as Paul spoke about the spirit of the prophet, the same is true of the spirit of all of us. It is subject to us. And constant amen-ing is rather disruptive, creating the very three-ring circus atmosphere that Paul spoke against in 1 Cor 14.
While I have no particular problem with prayer to all three of the Godhead, Jesus defined prayer as to the Father. He spelled-out several aspects of prayer. Reverence to the Father. Prayer for the kingdom. Prayer for our needs. Prayers of repentance and of strength to forgive others. Prayers for removal of temptations. And he began his prayers with "Our Father . . . ."
Do Paul's prayers, to the extent that the opening address is given in such a manner provide a different "formula"? I really don't think so. In some cases it is clear that what he gives as a prayer does not have all the "parts" as given by Jesus. But do they provide us with a different way? Or just a way to deal with parts of the whole without all the other parts?
. . . .
In some cases, my concern with some of the things that you have listed is not that they are bad or wrong, but that they are mired in a system of error.
That man has a spirit is sound, real, and important. But once it becomes the center of our search for God — the thing that we turn to — then we do not understand the purpose of our spirit.
How we pray is not as important as some make it out to be. But the examples that we are given stand in stark contrast to the ways that prayer is pushed and practiced in the "Local Churches." And when they speak of prayer, they effectively denigrate those who actually pray according to the patterns provided in the Bible. They would much rather lift up their voice and be proud of their way than bow in humility and beat their chest over their shortcomings. And we all have shortcomings.
Last, the word of God is the word of God, not the notes of any man, whether Darby, Scofield, or Lee. If you are willing to give all writers equal standing for consideration, then I might suggest that Lee could be among them. But his own declarations and actions make anything he says or does unworthy of being in the Christian square for consideration. If you can open your mind and eyes to what others have to say, then you might see how bankrupt Lee's writings are. Given that bankruptcy, I would instead suggest that once you see some of the problems, it will be better to toss it all aside and then discover from other sources what is true and note that Lee did have some truth in there. But he is not trustworthy as a primary source of truth.