Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I don't have Sit, Walk, Stand anymore so I can't check it for the characteristics you described. But from memory I recall the progression as being (1) We know our position in Christ (Sit), (2) From that position of sitting (resting in the knowledge of what God has done and who he has made us) we begin to live for Christ (Walk), (3) Having learned to live for Christ based on what God has done we can then resist the enemy as warriors (Stand). So a longer title for the book could be Know and Rest in What God has Done, Live by What God has Done, Fight by What God has Done.
I see nothing wrong, in principle, with this view.
I've always felt your objection to Lee's "wait on dispensing" was a net throw too broadly. Although I agree in principle with what you say, I don't believe that is what he preached. What I remember him preaching is that nothing we do in ourselves is worth much, i.e. if we try walk before sitting, if we try to do things with our own strength, we will fail. This doesn't promote passivity or waiting for strength, it promotes acting based on what God has done and what he has made us.
I'm not challenging you aggressively. Just discussing because I know people are watching.
|
I believe that Lee's "wait on dispensing" was an excuse to just live a failing life and it is OK because we aren't supposed to try, but only do once you have enough dispensing. It was an excuse for sin.
As for Sit Walk Stand, someone decided to go through it in a Sunday School class several years ago so I got to reread it. And while your characterization is at least mostly accurate, I found that the time for "sitting" was not simply a state that you move on from because you are in Christ, but was (in a very roundabout way) a stopover that you sort of needed to be in for a period so that you could then walk.
While not as blatant, in hindsight it was a little like saying (in Spiritual Authority) that you should always know who in the room is the most spiritual person and submit to them. And while he never said that he was always the most spiritual person in any room that included him, that was his implication indirectly gleaned from other statements.
No, it wasn't as obvious as that example, but it stuck out to me as I read through it. That was actually where I first began to wonder if Nee's inner-life books were really as great as everyone thought they were. I did not interject any questions on these things at the time, but the wheels started turning.
And it was the introduction to Nee's books in early 72 that set us up for a later introduction to Lee at the end of 72.
And when you speak it in terms of "if you try to walk before sitting" it really stands out to me. It would seem that if Jesus said to obey his commandments, then if you think you are following him, then you should be obeying. If you are coming to understand who Christ is and believe in him, you should be obeying. Or starting to.
The gospels provided no lag between facing Jesus and either obeying or turning away. That is not there. And just because you can overlay that idea into Ephesians doesn't mean that it is true. In a number of Paul's epistles he went to some lengths to tell them why they should be obedient in certain ways. He did not suggest that they should spend time studying it, and when they had it figured out, then obey. He didn't even suggest that they should go become crucified with Christ before getting with the program.
No. He said "I am crucified . . . and the life I now live . . . ." He didn't then say "so you go be/become crucified with Christ." He was not writing to the unsaved. He was writing to the church. So the command was "get with it" not "put it off until you have a good grasp of it."
I honestly think that the whole concept of "doing it in Christ" is at least partly a misunderstanding. Since Christ said to do it and Paul may have said some whys, but then said to do it, I am not sure that for the Christian there is any such thing as not being in Christ. We have turned this "in Christ" concept into an excuse for not trying. For not stepping out to do as commanded.
For the Christian, it should not matter whether I had a "quiet time" this morning when it comes to obedience. It should not matter whether I prayed for a long time, or for a short time; contemporaneously or a written prayer.
Or not at all.
If I, a Christian, am taking the step to obey the commands of the one I serve, how do you or anyone else declare it to be "not
IN Christ"?
So is "in Christ" something that is on and off like a light switch? Or like something you have to conjure up? Or if the scripture says that we are "in Christ" is that a fact that cannot be erased by lack of "morning watch"?
And this is not just a LCM problem. It is talked of (in different terms) among many evangelicals. Not all, but many.
So . . . .
Define "in Christ" in a way that is true to the scripture from which it must have been derived and that stands in the way of a Christian having the requirement to obey. Or more correctly demands that he not even try to obey.