Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ
Can we use John 4 to support Lee’s claims?
Can we use John 4 to refute Lee’s claims?
|
I would say that these verses in John 4 cannot define what is "in spirit and in truth," therefore they cannot support Lee's position. They are insufficient for the purpose of defining what is the meaning of the terms. That does not make the terms undefined or uncertain. But these verses provide no insight into what they mean.
But they also do not provide a proof against Lee. They indicate that a particular place is not where worship will happen. That at least hints at the idea that worship is not bound by a place. That would make it difficult to argue that within any reasonable segment of physical space in the 2-deminsional bounds of the surface of the earth, nothing precludes anywhere as being a place where worship may be occurring. If you take this to the extreme, then it means that even if you think there are other parameters that define the bounds of worship, it cannot be bound by space, therefore others meeting with the same reasonable amount of physical space are not precluded simply because they are not in another place within that space.
I know, too undefined.
And I realize that even the LRC does not define their meeting in terms of the place, but in terms of another alternate criteria — the manner of naming. If you name it wrong, it is presumed to not be in spirit whereas if you name it right, it is presumed to be in spirit. But if it was that simple, then Jesus was pulling our leg to say it was about something as poorly defined as "in spirit." I know that we all think we have a good handle on what the term means. And when Jesus said it, while it may not have been immediately understood by the woman, it probably was not that poorly defined.
But I would suggest that it is not simply one simple definition. It does not simply mean that we are using some mentioned but undefined "organ" of our person called the human spirit. That was a popular way of speaking of it in the LRC. But even parsing through Nee's verses on the "tripartite man" should help us become clear that the so-called separation of soul and spirit that ne spoke of is not really there. Most of the characteristics applied to the spirit are the same as those applied to the soul. It would appear that the spirit is more like an enhanced soul than a separate thing.
And when Paul and others (like Jesus did in John 4) make reference to being "in spirit" (as opposed to being "in the Spirit"), it would seem that a more common meaning of "spirit" is actually in use. The word is not so much about engaging some organ of the body, but in having your whole being — mind, emotion, will, and even body — focused and engaged in the thing that is being spoken of. Of course, that is very "spiritual." But it is not an organ that does not include our mind, emotion, and will. It seems evident to me that when Paul said "spirit of sonship" he was saying to be fully engaged as a son rather than a non-son playing the part. It is not some thing that falls on us. It is a fact that we can engage with. We may be adopted (in one sense) yet have full rights as a son, therefore have the right to act like it in all ways.
But if we presume that a group of Christians meeting as they engage their full being in focus on the worship of God is not "in spirit" just because they are not in the same meeting as some who have named their assembly in a better way, then there is a problem with the definition of "in spirit." That kind of definition adds something to the meaning of "in spirit" that is never even hinted at in any passage.
So while do not think that John 4 can defeat Lee's teachings, it can be a part of the full discussion that does just that.
And in some cases, it may be that there is nothing that specifically refutes certain of Lee's teachings that we do not think of a healthy. But without also finding evidence that the teaching is actually true, it is also safe to say that the scripture does not support it either. Therefore Lee's teaching could not rise above that of "opinion not supported by fact." Neither refuted nor supported.