Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Lee taught that natural things were bad. Everything that he could not tie to "the spirit" or "the Spirit" were rejected. Natural affections, or friendships were disdained. Rejected as not of the spirit.
To the Christian, life is of the spirit and of the Spirit. It is not put in the "spiritual" silo or the "worldly" silo based on some arbitrary analysis of whether you are "in spirit" or "not in spirit." And there are no parts of life that are not "in spirit" (or "in the Spirit") for the Christian. There is no need to check your temperature to determine whether God would have you be righteous today. There is no requirement to have a feeling before you do justice or be righteous.
No. Lee did not reject the bodily nature of Jesus. But too much of his theology was based in the false dichotomy of the Gnostics. There is a status of being "in spirit" that is easily turned on and off and only when it is on are you properly Christian (not the way he said it, but effectively so). There is a false dichotomy of the spiritual and the secular or physical.
But in the theology of Jesus, it is the nature of the believer that the whole of life becomes spiritual. It is all either undertaken by a follower or by someone not following. That is the defining difference. Not some artificial "in spirit."
|
This does not match my experience of the teachings of Witness Lee or the recovery over the past decade.
For example, there were statements such as:
Being "in the spirit" is the default position of a Christian - this is achieved for us positionally and objectively by Christ on the cross, not our own works.
The subjective experience of being "in the spirit" - calling on the Lord, pray reading etc. This is more about abiding in the Lord by intimate spiritual fellowship with Him. This part can be "turned on and off" but the former objective part is always constant.
As for natural affections or friendships being disdained, I know that he had a warped view of friendships, based upon the view that brotherly relationships are higher or more spiritual (and therefore a believer does not or should not have 'friends', as such, all are brethren in Christ). Did he mean we should not have friends (at all)? I did not get this, because in some of his writings he talks about the importance of friendships. But I have heard some say this, which makes me think they did not understand him.