Quote:
Conclusion: Deification — ‘Diamond,’ ‘Dud’ or ‘Distortion’?
Witness Lee portrayed his deification dogma as the “diamond in the box;” it was the last item of truth to be recovered, the capstone completing the Lord’s Recovery, initiating an unprecedented revival. But deification (theosis)—man becoming God—is not a new discovery. It has been at the center of Orthodoxy’s theology & teaching for centuries. If deification is the ‘diamond,’ as W. Lee claimed, there ought to be signs of revival and renewal in the Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Syrian, Coptic, etc). The rest of Christianity (Witness Lee alleged) had only the ‘box.’
We have looked in vain for statistical evidence of vibrancy, revival & renewal in terms of gospel spread via missions & above-average growth for Orthodox variants of the church. We found none. Orthodoxy, despite deification, is in (relative) decline; we found no (statistical) signs of revival or renewal here. This suggests that LSM’s deification dogma is not a ‘diamond;’ rather it is a ‘dud’!
LSM’s Deification -- ‘Diamond’ or ‘Distortion’?
Yet a stronger conclusion seems justified. The Church Fathers’ era, which spawned deification, saw a subtle “shift in emphasis regarding the decisive saving event, from Jesus’ death as atonement for sin, to his birth & incarnation as the divine taking the human into itself. Despite the Pauline insistence that central to the gospel was the affirmation that ‘Christ died for our sins’ (1 Cor. 15:3), the creeds shift the focus from the atoning death to incarnation,”24 says Professor James Dunn. As a result justification was neglected; “In most patristic treatments of [deification] theosis justification plays next to no role at all,”25 Paul Gavrilyuk observes. As Orthodoxy evolved the gospel’s center was displaced due to the deification dogma from Christ’s death & resurrection (1 Cor. 2:2; 15:3-4) to his birth & incarnation. Thus scholars conclude “The incarnation…is the central redemptive event in Eastern Orthodoxy.” As a result Christ’s redemptive death is de-emphasized or (for some) dispensed with. Thus Orthodoxy’s Stephen Finlan advocates “highlighting...God’s near approach to humanity…through the incarnation of Jesus…but drop[ing] the idea of any magical transaction taking place at the cross [i.e., atonement].” Adam J. Johnson concludes that this shift makes “the incarnation the original and central doctrine of the Christian faith, relegating the atonement to the status of an impure accretion.”
|
For me, Nigel's conclusions, based on solid research, say it all, and I'll summarize:
- Theosis is a "dud" because there never will be the promised revival every faithful LSM'er is hoping for.
- Theosis is a "distortion" because it shifts the emphasis of the gospel from the cross to the incarnation. Subtle but significant.
In his waning days, Lee basically sold us a bill of goods. In the aftermath of his son Philip's takeover of LSM, with untold abuses against the truth and God's children, Witness Lee frantically diverted our attention by seeking something "new." The so-called "new" way could no longer be used. By this time, the anointing on his ministry had all but vanished, and since the scriptures convicted him, "new" teachings were found elsewhere in the ancient writings.