"Heavenly Language"

[Peter Debelak]

Because the "Organic Salvation" thread has a "unique language of the LC" discussion, I thought it best to create a new thread on this topic.

If I may, I would like to use the example of how Witness Lee discussed the Trinity in order to highlight good arguments from both sides of the debate.

Many have taken Witness Lee to task for "confusing the persons of the Trinity" (indeed, it was part of the mission of the last forum). Yet I personally thing the notion of "person" when it comes to the Trinity is too "nice and tidy" - not capturing all of what the Bible has to say about the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit.

In that light, here's Witness Lee (in the book Divine and Mystical Realm):

Understanding the second (Christ) and the third (the Spirit) of the Divine Trinity has been most bothersome and troublesome. Who is Christ? In answer to this question, most Christians would say that Christ is the Son of God. However, many believers do not realize that Christ is not merely the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16) but also the firstborn Son of God (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:18; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 1:5). How could the only begotten Son become the firstborn Son? As the only begotten Son He must be the only Son and cannot be the first, and as the firstborn Son He is the first Son and thus cannot be the only Son. How should we explain this?

Theologians claim that the persons of the Trinity should not be confused. Nevertheless, we need to ask certain questions. Is Christ only the Son and not also the Spirit? Is the Spirit only the Spirit? Is the Spirit not also related to Christ and involved with the Son? Another question concerns the seven Spirits (Rev. 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6). According to Revelation 5:6 the seven Spirits are the seven eyes of the Lamb. Are the seven Spirits and the Lamb one person or two persons? Surely They are two, yet the seven Spirits are the seven eyes of the Lamb. Are They one or two? If we say that the Lamb and the seven Spirits as the seven eyes of the Lamb are one, others, insisting that the Spirit is the Spirit and the Son is the Son, will accuse us of confusing the persons of the Divine Trinity. But in Revelation 5:6 the third of the Divine Trinity is the eyes of the second. How, then, can the Spirit be separate from the Son? Are your eyes separate from you yourself? While your eyes are looking at someone, you are looking at that person. No one would say, “Only my eyes are looking at you; I myself am not looking at you.” Your eyes are you. For your eyes to look at something means that you yourself are looking. These are brief illustrations of the shortages of the theology in today’s Christianity.

Because the matters of the Son and the Spirit in the Divine Trinity are very difficult and complicated, we have been compelled to give Christ a particular title—the all-inclusive Christ. Christ is all-inclusive because He is everything. He is God, He is the Father (Isa. 9:6), He is the Son, and He is the Spirit. According to the revelation in the New Testament, the Father is embodied in the Son (Col. 2:9), and the Son is realized by the Spirit (John 14:17, 20). Thus, the Son is the embodiment of the Father, and the Spirit is the realization of the Son. This surely is a divine and heavenly language.

On the one hand, Witness Lee lays out a compelling argument that the traditional "language" about the Trinity is inadequate. Thus, he attempted - from a well-intentioned place - to try to capture the more nuanced Biblical record. There may still be room for disagreement, but this impulse to use extra-biblical language specifically in an effort to more closely capture what the Bible says, is notable.

But he then takes another step. Not only is his articulation "more accurate" or somesuch, he makes the claim this is a "divine and heavenly language."

Thus, in one fell swoop he both attempts to engage the Bible itself more accurately and then immediately elevates his articulation to mythical proportions.

The first impulse is good. The second, dangerous and unnecessary.

It may or may not be objectively true that his articulation is "divine and heavenly." But in either case a believer doesn't need to know or believe this to gain whatever value the articulation has. The only logical reason to add this "divine and heavenly language" element is to elevate his ministry. It doesn't add to his argument, except to create a new argument - a self-validating one. Which is no argument at all.

I sat in one Lord's Table with brother Lee in Anaheim. During prophesying, a sister - who was brilliant, educated and articulate - wove together a great narrative. She said (paraphrased from memory), all anthropologists know that when studying an ancient people, their language is what illumines their nature as a people. She went on to say that in generations from now, when archeologists study the Lord's Recovery, they will encounter such a rich language. And from this language they will uncover a mystical or spiritual people.

Witness Lee was visibly moved by her speaking and said something about the pride a father must have (directing it at her father who was a leading one in So. Cal). Honestly, it really was a well crafted speaking.

There is something amiss when a Word-based faith finds a separate pride in its own language which are "proxies" for what the Word itself says.

I don't take umbrage at using "coined terms" especially when they are coined in an attempt to better capture nuanced biblical truths than existing articulations. But a pride in that - indeed, a declaration that the terms are "heavenly," is dangerous territory.

Thoughts?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. Hey Unto, perhaps this will get us out of the last discussion....but embroiled in a new one! Sorry, frying pans and fire have such an allure...

[coalsoffire]

When I heard Jackie Evancho sing "Pie Jesu," what I heard I would not hesitate to describe as "divine and heavenly."

Once I was listening to a piece of classical music. It may have been played by atheists, for all I know. I had the thought, "This music is eternal." Later I came to know that what I heard was Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring."

Once, at a Celtic Spirituality conference, I heard Theresa Schroeder-Sheker speak and then play her harp. Both her speaking and music were "divine and heavenly." She was, without a doubt in my mind, an inspired person, a person infused with divine and heavenly things. Unearthly.

Is it heresy to term something "divine and heavenly" other than from the Bible? Yes, it elevates the thing described. Have you not ever wondered at some moments, "Where did that come from?! I surely have not the capacity to write or speak such a thing. God must have been involved." The term elevates God, not the medium through which he is expressed. It is nothing less than his mercy that we may experience divine and heavenly expressions of the Creator through his creatures. He is there, in us!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by coalsoffire

Is it heresy to term something "divine and heavenly" other than from the Bible? Yes, it elevates the thing described. Have you not ever wondered at some moments, "Where did that come from?! I surely have not the capacity to write or speak such a thing. God must have been involved." The term elevates God, not the medium through which he is expressed. It is nothing less than his mercy that we may experience divine and heavenly expressions of the Creator through his creatures. He is there, in us!

If God alone is elevated, then we probably agree there is little concern, but when the thing itself is elevated, then there is concern that we have made a new idol, and at what point do we stop appreciating God, as we bestow unending honors upon the one inventing the "new language."

I remember reading a book by Ron Kangas, "Response to Recent Accusations." One of the so-called "accusations" by John Ingalls et. al. was that the Recovery as a whole excessively elevated Witness Lee and his ministry. Ron Kangas' answer in the book was "can we ever honor a brother too much?" One of the elevations concerning WL was his promotion of the "new language."

[coalsoffire]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If God alone is elevated, then we probably agree there is little concern, but when the thing itself is elevated, then there is concern that we have made a new idol, and at what point do we stop appreciating God, as we bestow unending honors upon the one inventing the "new language."

I remember reading a book by Ron Kangas, "Response to Recent Accusations." One of the so-called "accusations" by John Ingalls et. al. was that the Recovery as a whole excessively elevated Witness Lee and his ministry. Ron Kangas' answer in the book was "can we ever honor a brother too much?" One of the elevations concerning WL was his promotion of the "new language."

Mother Theresa said of the lepers she ministered to, "touching God, in his distressing disguise." She honored them, and by honoring them, she honored God.

On the other hand, when the people said of Herod's speech, "The voice of a god and not of a man," and Herod did not give glory to God, an angel killed him.

It says "instantly" killed him--I am not sure Herod had much of a chance to attribute his words to God, but perhaps the wording means his speech did not give glory to God.

If words (or art or music or acts of charity) are intended and able to point people to God, to give him the glory, perhaps then we might call such things "heavenly & divine."

I was at a foot washing once. I noticed one very socially awkward brother washing his brother's feet, and after drying his brother's feet he put the brother's shoes back on, but forgot the socks. What I saw really touched me deeply--the awkward brother stretching himself in love--a heavenly and divine scene.

I hope to continue to see such scenes, and I hope to see less of the Herod type scenes, which abound in our culture. I treasure what there is to be treasured and I thank God for his mercy. I cannot say I treasure (hmm... I did say I love) the word "organic," but I am thankful for food grown the natural way, without pesticides or growth hormones. I am thankful that God is our organic food as well. Sometimes, perhaps, he is 'sold' to us with traces of pesticides & additions of growth hormones.

Perhaps this is why I love the word organic: The very best food for infants is breast milk--I like this picture: the mother gives of what she has taken in, digested, and, then, really, has been divinely transformed into the best food for her child. Other products, transformed by man, can also produce growth, but they do not contain all the mysterious elements of the breast milk, such as the mother's natural immunities.

HWMR: "Composition for prophecy with main points and sub points"--I encounter this particular space provided, for the first time, today, with that title. I plan to be rebelliously curious about me, what I've read this week, God, my experience, and write uncensored, like a journal entry. This title could be intimidating, and it appears intimidating, yet I refuse to give in to my fears. Perfect love casts out all fears & Jesus says not to fear because he is with me.

If I decide to drive the one hour to the nearest "meeting," I plan to keep my prophetic mouth shut, and listen, and learn. God knows what is in my heart. If he wants me to share it, then it will gush, quite organically, maybe like vomit even, out of my mouth.

Lord have mercy on us all!

[aron]

Originally Posted by coalsoffire

If words (or art or music or acts of charity) are intended and able to point people to God, to give him the glory, perhaps then we might call such things "heavenly & divine."

John wrote, "Little children, guard yourselves from idols." He was, I believe, referencing spiritual things which could ultimately usurp the place of God Himself in our hearts. Anything can point us to God. Many things do. The heavens themselves, wordlessly, declare the glory of God (Psa 19). But we do not elevate any of the starry messengers above their allotted station. When I see someone tout their "rich ministry" I remember John's warning.

Brother Lee's ministry was perhaps heavenly, and divine. But arguably so was that of Mother Teresa and Billy Graham and many, many others. To call particular attention to any ministry as heavenly and divine, as if somehow distinctive from any others, is to attempt evalutations that only God Himself is truly capable of.

To be safe, I think there is only one name, the name of Jesus. There is only one ministry, that of Jesus. There is only one speaking: through Jesus Christ (See Hebrews 1). The rest of us are but faint echoes. I am not comfortable lifting any voice above the rest, save the Shepherd alone.

Originally Posted by coalsoffire

HWMR: "Composition for prophecy with main points and sub points"--I encounter this particular space provided, for the first time, today, with that title. I plan to be rebelliously curious about me, what I've read this week, God, my experience, and write uncensored, like a journal entry.

If I decide to drive the one hour to the nearest "meeting," I plan to keep my prophetic mouth shut, and listen, and learn.

Enjoy the journey. If you keep your heart humble and open surely the Lord will meet you along the way.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of the elevations concerning WL was his promotion of the "new language."

To me, this was a "divide and conquer" strategy. You end up with a special terminology from a special speaker which has a special meaning for an insular group.

I remember visiting a brother after a long absence. I told him where I was now living. He asked, "Are there any saints there?" I replied, "Yes, thousands of them." He kind of flinched and said, "You know what I mean." I said, "No, I do not." I refused to acknowledge a special meaning to the word.

Look at the words Lee uses in Peter's quote: "embodiment" and "realization". Good words. But no more divine than "love" or "respect" or "obedience" or "peace" or "righteousness". There is a whole nuther level of reality in front of us in the person of Jesus Christ. Or levels. Coining new words does not bring reality to our grasp. But the danger is that we may think it does; that somehow we have crafted the perfect box to contain God.

I was not impressed with Lee the wordsmith back in the day, when I was an LC acolyte. It was something I put up with to be in "the church life". I am even less sanguinary today. Contrary to what that sister declared in the meeting, I think that generations from now will equate Lee's terminology with Mao's "Great Leap Forward" rubric. It is phraseology designed to market a very earthly plan.

"Youth Propagation Groups" -- remember that one? "Ministry of the age"? "One trumpet"? Inward-looking rhetoric of an insular sect. "Trainings"; "Blending"; "Consummation": as if somehow declaring these words loudly with clenched fists will bring some higher "heavenly" level of existence. That sister's eloquent and heartfelt speech could not cover this.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

To me, this was a "divide and conquer" strategy. You end up with a special terminology from a special speaker which has a special meaning for an insular group.

When believers become persuaded that their extra-Biblical, elevated terminology somehow imbues them with some special spiritual status, it is dangerous indeed, aron. Look at these quotes from the Blendeds ...

“By 1994 the ministry in the Lord’s recovery had brought the recovery into a new realm, a new stage, and a new culture with a new language. The ability to speak this new language as a native speaker is a testimony that we have been reconstituted. Today there is opposition to learning this language.” [RK, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 5, May 2005, p. 51]

“The Lord’s move in His recovery is always advancing…This culture is so divine and mysterious that it requires a mysterious and divine language to communicate it… Therefore, we have a new language today. We need to pick up the new language. Even if we do not understand what it all means, we should still begin speaking … We need to speak the new language.” [MC, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 3, March 2005, p. 51]

“Where is there pure language today? It is not in the world. It is not in Christianity … In the Lord’s recovery there is a pure language, the language of the pure God.” [RK, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 5, May 2005, p. 11]

The arrogance coming out of Anaheim is simply incredible. They have convinced themselves that they, and only they, speak the pure language of God, a language only found in the books published by LSM, and not the plain old "Babylonian" language spoken in the Bible. God has "improved" his vocabulary and only let a select few know it. In fact, if we can get unbelievers to speak the new vocabulary, they will be reconstituted with this pure language directly from the pure God, thus bypassing the overly tedious steps of believing, suffering, obeying, walking by faith, loving your brothers, etc.

.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The arrogance coming out of Anaheim is simply incredible.

First pride, then the crash—the bigger the ego, the harder the fall. Proverbs 16:18, The Message

(Pride goes before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.)

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The arrogance coming out of Anaheim is simply incredible. They have convinced themselves that they, and only they, speak the pure language of God, a language only found in the books published by LSM, and not the plain old "Babylonian" language spoken in the Bible. God has "improved" his vocabulary and only let a select few know it.

Language is the primary concern of Witness Lee and the Anaheim Politburo (and I would also say with Titus Chu/Cleveland.) They decide what words can and cannot be used.

In addition to their boundless arrogance IMHO 2 other obvious problems are:

1. Nobody knows what they are talking about outside the LC. Good preachers and teachers are able to contextualize the gospel and use language and examples that people understand.

2. Their theological vocabulary has no semblance at all to their own reality. E.g. they teach being saturated with the processed Triune God while suing their brothers and sisters in Christ for real estate, etc.

Originally Posted by Ohio

When believers become persuaded that their extra-Biblical, elevated terminology somehow imbues them with some special spiritual status, it is dangerous indeed, aron. Look at these quotes from the Blendeds ...

The arrogance coming out of Anaheim is simply incredible. They have convinced themselves that they, and only they, speak the pure language of God, a language only found in the books published by LSM, and not the plain old "Babylonian" language spoken in the Bible. God has "improved" his vocabulary and only let a select few know it. In fact, if we can get unbelievers to speak the new vocabulary, they will be reconstituted with this pure language directly from the pure God, thus bypassing the overly tedious steps of believing, suffering, obeying, walking by faith, loving your brothers, etc.

.

I am pretty sure the term "pure language" is based on the prophecy in Zephaniah 3:9. Most expositors understand this to refer to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is when the rest of the prophecy was fulfilled:


Zephaniah 3:11 In that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings, wherein thou hast transgressed against me: for then I will take away out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride, and thou shalt no more be haughty because of my holy mountain.
3:12 I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the LORD.
3:13 The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.
3:14 Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem.
3:15 The LORD hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy: the king of Israel, even the LORD, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember reading a book by Ron Kangas, "Response to Recent Accusations." One of the so-called "accusations" by John Ingalls et. al. was that the Recovery as a whole excessively elevated Witness Lee and his ministry. Ron Kangas' answer in the book was "can we ever honor a brother too much?" One of the elevations concerning WL was his promotion of the "new language."

In response to Ron's rhetoric, yes you can honor a brother too much. Look no further than the Gospel of John chapter 5. Problem with this is when you honor a brother too much, you become man-honoring. See verse 43:

"I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him."

As for the new language Ohio, when I was meeting in the local churches I found this language to be a distraction. When you focus on the intricate terminologies, I found my focus was lost why I'm there for. Moreover recieiving one another was more about learning and reciting the new terminologies and phrases than it was our salvation.
By the time I was led to meet elsewhere, it became apparent this language was not so heavenly, but something of the flesh in order to distinguish and exalt the local churches from other Christian assemblies within the Body life.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by coalsoffire

Is it heresy to term something "divine and heavenly" other than from the Bible? Yes, it elevates the thing described. Have you not ever wondered at some moments, "Where did that come from?! I surely have not the capacity to write or speak such a thing. God must have been involved." The term elevates God, not the medium through which he is expressed. It is nothing less than his mercy that we may experience divine and heavenly expressions of the Creator through his creatures. He is there, in us!

Just because man fell, and sin and death entered the world, it does not negate the fact that man is the crowning glory of his creation. We are the only creature made “in his image, according to his likeness”. We are now damaged goods as it were, but goods made directly by the hand of God nonetheless. Due to man’s disobedience, the world was damaged as well. We are broken creatures living in a broken world. In a sense, all of world history is a record of mankind, along with creation, suffering from and dealing with this brokenness. Intertwined, though, throughout the whole process God reveals and expresses himself though his creation. There is a “divine spark” within man – we are all “hardwired” with the image and likeness of God. As his creation, yes, God is involved with everything – the good, the bad and the ugly. Your statement “He is there, in us!” reminded me of a passage in Acts 17, where the Apostle Paul was conversing with the religionists and philosophers of his day:

Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, "What does this babbler wish to say?" …So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious…The God who made the world and everything in it, he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.'"

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalm 19:1)

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves (Romans 2:14)

For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Romans 8:22)

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalm 19:1)

Amen. May we have opened eyes and heartstrings attuned to the vibration of the universe! Our own words are merely feeble attempts to point back to the incarnate Word of God.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I sat in one Lord's Table with brother Lee in Anaheim. During prophesying, a sister - who was brilliant, educated and articulate - wove together a great narrative. She said (paraphrased from memory), all anthropologists know that when studying an ancient people, their language is what illumines their nature as a people. She went on to say that in generations from now, when archeologists study the Lord's Recovery, they will encounter such a rich language. And from this language they will uncover a mystical or spiritual people.

Generations from now archeologists studying the LC? Even silver tongued eloquence cannot cover up the humor in that narrative!