Good Lee/Bad Lee: Can They Be Separated?

[Cal]

As I go on and discover more and more the riches that God has placed in so many Christian teachers, old and new, I find less and less interest or need to visit Witness Lee's teachings. When I do they sound stranger and stranger. Like others have said, there is so much errant teaching and pure speculation masquerading as revelation mixed in with the good that one must have continual guard up to filter it out.

Here is a classic example from the last chapter of Lee's book A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing (1990 ISBN: 978-0-87083-562-9). First is a paragraph of what I would call "good Lee," an enlightening insight into two aspects of our relationship with God. Lee, with his accountant's mind, was good at this kind of comparison and contrast:

"The Father is both our God and our Father. His being our Father means that we are born of Him. His being our God means that we were created by Him. If we were only created by God but not begotten of Him, we are not in the church. By being born of God we enter into a life relationship and an organic union with Him. First, God created us, and then He begot us. Since we are created by God and born of God, our relationship with Him is twofold. First, we are God’s creatures, and He is our Creator. Then, we are God’s children, and He is our Father. If there were no children of God, there would be no church. We in the church have been both created by God and born of God. Thus, we are created as proper human beings and born as children of God. This is the church."

That's good stuff (although Lee under-emphasized the Biblical matter of adoption.)

Unfortunately, only two paragraphs later "bad Lee" pops out in the following infamous speaking:

"Ultimately, the church is a group of people who are in union with the Triune God and are mingled with the Triune God. The Triune God and the church are four-in-one. Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the “four-in-one God.” These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused." [emphasis added]

That sounds like the carrying-on's of someone who doesn't know when to be quiet. Lee's late-in-life output more and more took on this characteristic of heady metaphysical speculation, as if he felt the need to push the envelope more and more to show he was still receiving "recovered truth."

Should a person risk taking in ideas like the "four-in-one God" in order to obtain the good things Lee has to offer? Why when there are so many decent, healthy and down-to-earth alternatives out there?

LRCers don't care. To them there is no bad Lee, even when he talks nonsense like the "four-in-one God." But more sober-minded people need such a filter, and unfortunately no warning label comes on LSM products.

It appears simply that the average Christian could not safely navigate the whirlpools of bad Lee to find the calm waters of good Lee. Unless someone takes his ministry and reinterprets it with the bad parts removed, it's just difficult to recommend it in any form.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It appears simply that the average Christian could not safely navigate the whirlpools of bad Lee to find the calm waters of good Lee. Unless someone takes his ministry and reinterprets it with the bad parts removed, it's just difficult to recommend it in any form.

And it's also difficult to imagine that it will ever come close to being mainstream. Some good portions of his ministry will find their way into the teachings of others via circuitous paths, as Nee's did. The Body will simply filter the rest, as it should and always has. But as a whole it will most likely always be considered fringe.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Should a person risk taking in ideas like the "four-in-one God" in order to obtain the good things Lee has to offer? Why when there are so many decent, healthy and down-to-earth alternatives out there?

Igzy,

There are very few people, authors, teachers, ministers, bloggers, and scholars that I agree with 100% on everything they say or teach.

I don't like mushrooms on my pizza either. I can tolerate most other toppings but prefer pepperoni, actually double pepperoni. When I encounter something I do not like I simply flick that topping off and if I think that particular topping spoils the whole pie then I set the whole aside and go to a different pizza.

Now I understand you have a strong aversion to some of Witness Lee's writings and teachings and if the whole is spoiled for some of the toppings then you are right to go elsewhere. Yet some folks happen to like Witness Lee's teachings in whole or in part. That is their right as well.

If you intended to make the case against the whole of Witness Lee's teaching with the example you used you failed to do so. Just because you do not agree or understand what Witness Lee meant does not mean that everyone else should reject it as you have. Until, you can make a scriptural case against the great truth of the Body of Christ then I think the testimony of scripture is sufficient.

So yes, one does not need to accept or reject the whole.

Cassidy

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Igzy,
There are very few people, authors, teachers, ministers, bloggers, and scholars that I agree with 100% on everything they say or teach.
So yes, one does not need to accept or reject the whole.

Cassidy,

Thanks for the response. Firstly, part of the problem with Lee's ministry is that there are so many questionable "toppings" that flicking all the potential bad ones off in order to get the good ones is a non-trivial challenge, even for those with solid theological backgrounds. If someone orders a pizza with pepperoni, mushrooms, anchovies, pineapple, artichoke and jalapenos you'd probably wait for the next round rather than try pick off all the toppings you don't like. It's a matter of playing the percentages.

Secondly, I'm a pretty smart guy and I studied Lee for a long time. And I still don't know what the four-in-one God thing was really about. I have to believe few others really do either. Adding a "person" to the Godhead is just heresy plain and simple. The argument that Lee was on some higher plane that we can't understand is bogus and it actually makes my point--that some of his stuff is not fit for general consumption, due to the high possibility of misunderstanding. (Or perhaps the danger is someone will understand it, who knows?)

Thirdly, I didn't realize it was an option in the LRC to "remove toppings" from Lee's pizza. I thought you had to eat the whole thing or be deemed out of whack with the ministry of the age and the up-to-date move of God. After all, isn't that what the one publication thing was about?

Lastly, I was not attempting to make an argument that Lee should be avoided at all costs. I was just attempting to start a discussion on the challenges of taking in his ministry.

Your response sort of sounds like that of people who argue that riding a motorcycle without a helmet is up to discretion of the individual. It is, but that doesn't make doing it the smartest thing in the world, at least without fully understanding the dangers. Make no mistake, there are dangers with Lee's ministry. I experienced them firsthand.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Until, you can make a scriptural case against the great truth of the Body of Christ then I think the testimony of scripture is sufficient.

Nowhere does the testimony of Scripture on the Body of Christ necessitate the conclusion that the Church becomes part of God to the point that we can equate the Body with the Persons of the Godhead.

The Body of Christ teaching is about two things. (1) We are the extension of Christ to do his work on Earth, and (2) Each member has a place and purpose in the Body and those differ.

There is no implication that we must "go" to the idea that the Body means we are now part of God. To say so is just speculation, it's not scripture.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Nowhere does the testimony of Scripture on the Body of Christ necessitate the conclusion that the Church becomes part of God to the point that we can equate the Body with the Persons of the Godhead.

I agree.

Yet, where did Witness Lee conclude that the Church as a 4th Person becomes part of the Godhead?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

If you intended to make the case against the whole of Witness Lee's teaching with the example you used you failed to do so. Just because you do not agree or understand what Witness Lee meant does not mean that everyone else should reject it as you have. Until, you can make a scriptural case against the great truth of the Body of Christ then I think the testimony of scripture is sufficient.

So yes, one does not need to accept or reject the whole.

Cassidy, the phrase "three-in-one," while not being scriptural per se, has long been accepted by the orthodox church as a description of the mystery of our God -- Father, Son, and Spirit. To now apply this to the present day body of Christ, using the expression "four-in-one," is a stretch of hyperbole no Christian scholar is willing to make. The Bible frankly does not say it, so why should we? Does not the Bible provide us with enough fellowship and teaching concerning God Himself, that we need not add to the Bible, especially those phrases fraught with danger?

I was under the teachings of WL for three decades. I surely know what WL meant.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Cassidy, the phrase "three-in-one," while not being scriptural per se, has long been accepted by the orthodox church as a description of the mystery of our God -- Father, Son, and Spirit. To now apply this to the present day body of Christ, using the expression "four-in-one," is a stretch of hyperbole no Christian scholar is willing to make. The Bible frankly does not say it, so why should we? Does not the Bible provide us with enough fellowship and teaching concerning God Himself, that we need not add to the Bible, especially those phrases fraught with danger?

I was under the teachings of WL for three decades. I surely know what WL meant.

Okay Ohio, then what did he mean by 4-in-1?

Are you saying Witness Lee taught the Body was in the Godhead? I would object to that.

Cassidy

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Okay Ohio, then what did he mean by 4-in-1?

Are you saying Witness Lee taught the Body was in the Godhead? I would object to that.

Cassidy

What WL taught was that the body is in God and that God is in the body just as the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. I agree with everything except this phrase "just as." Once WL used this phrase "just as," and others like it, then the next step or two was to use the phrase "four-in-one." Do you see how each of these "baby steps" leads to a conclusion which appears scriptural, yet is not? This is the danger in basing your theology on "inference" and not on the plain words of scripture.

Once the expression "four-in-one" is used, most readers then consider that the body is "in the Godhead," even if WL says it is not. WL uses similar logic to imply that we are made god. Even though he adds caveats about the Godhead, he still says that we are "made god." This is another wrong step of inference. Yes ... "God became man," and yes ... we have the divine life, and yes ... we partake of the divine nature, but no ... we cannot infer by these, that we are "made god." The Bible never says that. It is these "leaps of inference" in WL's teachings that cause us so much concern.

In the early days of the Recovery, WL would speak about returning to the "pure word of God." He also said we have no need for "systematized theology." I still agree with these. This return to the "pure word of God," brought much blessing to the children of God, including those in the Recovery. Unfortunately, this practice has changed over the years. Now in the Recovery, returning to the "pure word of God" is looked upon with suspicion. That should tell you a lot.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What WL taught was that the body is in God and that God is in the body just as the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. I agree with everything except this phrase "just as."

Then what did the Lord Jesus mean when He said:

John 17: 20-22

I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Okay Ohio, then what did he mean by 4-in-1?

Are you saying Witness Lee taught the Body was in the Godhead? I would object to that.

Cassidy

Then he shouldn't have used the term "four-in-one God." Because everyone agrees that "three-in-one" is talking about the Godhead. That's the point of reference. So it's logical for readers to presume that "four-in-one" is talking about the Godhead as well. The phrase implies adding a Fourth that gains the status of the original Three. Otherwise, why use the phrase in the first place?

Saying later that the Body doesn't become part of the Godhead doesn't fix the problem, because then people become confused as to just what "four-in-one God" means.

It's like if Lee would say because kids eat a lot of candy that candy is now the "fifth food group." The original four food groups (meat, grain, dairy, fruit/veggies) are supposed to be the healthy essential foods. So then people would ask "oh, so you are saying candy is now a healthy, essential food group?" To which you would answer if you responded like you did here "When did Lee say that?"

The point is Lee should have never used the term "four-in-one God" and it certainly shouldn't have been published. Since he did, my case is made. It's a loose, confusing and dangerous speaking. Man becoming God falls into the same category.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Then he shouldn't have used the term "four-in-one God." Because everyone agrees that "three-in-one" is talking about the Godhead. That's the point of reference. So it's logical for readers to presume that "four-in-one" is talking about the Godhead as well. The phrase implies adding a Fourth that gains the status of the original Three. Otherwise, why use the phrase in the first place.

Saying later that the Body doesn't become part of the Godhead doesn't fix the problem, because then people become confused as to just what "four-in-one God" means.

It's like if Lee would say because kids eat a lot of candy that candy is now the "fifth food group." The original four food groups (meat, grain, dairy, fruit/veggies) are supposed to be the healthy essential foods. So then people would ask "oh, so you are saying candy is now a healthy, essential food group?" To which you would answer if you responded like you did here "When did Lee say that?"

The point is Lee should have never used the term "four-in-one" God and it certainly shouldn't have been published. Since he did, my case is made. It's a loose, confusing and dangerous speaking. Man becoming God falls into the same category.

Okay Igzy, I understand how the term four-in-one might lead some to believe it is in reference to the Godhead, in isolation. But even the quote you provided in the base note it is clear he did not mean that.

Is your issue that there is no such four-in-one entity? Or is your issue that Witness Lee was careless in his use of term "four-in-one"?

[Paul Cox]

Bilbodo...I mean, Casidy,

There is a biblical basis for rejecting the entirety of Witness Lee's Ministry. In a word - leaven.

Any ministry that would lead its followers to believe that the one who brought the ministry is the, "Acting God," "One Man," "Oracle," "Apostle for the Age," the vicar of Christ or any other such nonsense if chock full of the leaven of the Pharisees, rotten, stinky pride. Any ministry that would lead it's followers to look at themselves with swollen pride and call themselves "The" whatever, should be rejected wholesale.

P.C.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

There is a biblical basis for rejecting the entirety of Witness Lee's Ministry. In a word - leaven.

I am going to be a fly in the ointment on this issue. Not because what is behind it is untrue, but because I believe that the point made by saying "leaven" is not simply something bad.

Jesus used leaven in different ways. In one case, the kingdom of God is like leaven (not, at Lee would suggest, like the dough). The point about leaven is not that it is good or bad, but that, metaphorically, it spreads and affects things in a way that is virtually impossible to reverse. And in saying "virtually impossible to reverse," I would suggest that this particular aspect of the metaphor is not generally intended.

The important thing about leaven is that it disappears within what becomes leavened, changing it in the process. If the leaven is the kingdom of God, then the change is positive. If it is the leaven of the Pharisees, then there is clearly a problem.

And in one very recent case, someone mentioned leavening the whole lump an it appeared to be presumed to be negative in connotation.

It actually is the leaven of Lee that makes me consider to reject him. But not just because it is leaven, but because it is the kind that is like the leaven of the Pharisees. I would argue that if we start with the idea that the gospels contain the direct spoken and observed teaching of God/Christ, then in a way, Paul, Peter, John, James, and any other writer of epistles "leavened" the message. They gave it analysis. They gave it immediately relevant character that might not have otherwise been obvious to those they wrote to. Their mark on how we understand the truths of the NT is inextricably part of the record. It cannot be separated from it. But they were faithful to the intent of the gospel they were sent to preach, so their "mark" was positive and useful.

You may think that it is a bit much to consider Paul's writings as leaven relative to the gospel. But forget all you ever learned from Paul, Peter, John, James, etc., and just read the gospels. Are you sure that you would have come to the same conclusions that you do including their writings? Of course not. If we all would, then their writings would be superfluous and pointless. The changes that occurred as the result of those writings was important and obviously necessary because there were churches having problems that understanding the totality of the gospel should have dealt with. So some instruction was necessary. And since it is inspired by God, it is not as if I am calling the "leaven" of these writers separate from that influence. But some of it was a matter of the way they said things. And Paul surely spoke differently than Peter did. And John. And James. And Jude.

When we listen to anyone teaching us anything about the word they are putting a little bit of themselves into it. And it is always like leaven. But sometimes it really helps us understand and apply what is there while other times is may confuse us, or lead us in a different direction.

And in Lee's case, I think that the direction was mostly wrong. So Lee's leaven is worthy of serious caveat.

[Paul Cox]

The way I meant it was pretty simple, really. In the case of Lee's ministry it is the leaven of the Pharisees - puffed up with pride. A whole lot of gas bubbles inside that there dough.

P.C.

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

Any ministry that would lead its followers to believe that the one who brought the ministry is the, "Acting God," "One Man," "Oracle," "Apostle for the Age," the vicar of Christ or any other such nonsense if chock full of the leaven of the Pharisees, rotten, stinky pride. Any ministry that would lead it's followers to look at themselves with swollen pride and call themselves "The" whatever, should be rejected wholesale.

Here is my view of Witness Lee: if I am studying a passage of Scripture I will read it in many translations including interlinear GK and Hebrew. While doing so I will pray for the Holy Spirit to give me insights and instruction from the words He authored. Then I will read several commentaries from different traditions, look at word studies e.g. Vincent, Vine, Wuest, etc. One of the commentaries I may read sometimes is the one done by Witness Lee. That's the beginning and end of it.

That the LC has built up an entire church system around this guy based on a crazy "one oracle" concept is politely put: sheer lunacy.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Now I understand you have a strong aversion to some of Witness Lee's writings and teachings and if the whole is spoiled for some of the toppings then you are right to go elsewhere. Yet some folks happen to like Witness Lee's teachings in whole or in part. That is their right as well.
Cassidy

Are you saying that ones interpretation of scripture is a matter of taste and not of truth? That's what I am hearing. That's not real faith at all. And that's not worship of a real and Living God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee's late-in-life output more and more took on this characteristic of heady metaphysical speculation, as if he felt the need to push the envelope more and more to show he was still receiving "recovered truth."

Should a person risk taking in ideas like the "four-in-one God" in order to obtain the good things Lee has to offer? Why when there are so many decent, healthy and down-to-earth alternatives out there?

WL had the character trait that only wanted to hear positive feedback. Hence, over time he became surrounded by handlers who only sang his praises. He had no contemporaries to balance his teachings, which continually pushed the envelope to new limits. This danger exists with all Christian leaders, though unfortunately, when it comes to their own ministries, they just can't see the impending pitfalls.

Another self-created booby-trap is the recovery theme. Though I do agree with some elements of the notion of "recovery," it placed demands of WL to always come up with new lights and insights for his lackeys to "ooh and aah" over. The "four-in-one-God" was one such development. To the LC faithful, this is just a "natural progression of the N.T. revelation," but to real students of the Bible, this sounds alarms.

Personally, I like threads like this because it seems to follow the thought of Paul's admonishment in Hebrews 5.14, but these forums seem to have little tolerance for this strain of thought, as was again evidenced with the recent debate and subsequent departure of ZNP. Perhaps with all of Igzy's vast linguistic skills, he can succeed where others have failed.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Here is a classic example from the last chapter of Lee's book A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing (1990 ISBN: 978-0-87083-562-9). First is a paragraph of what I would call "good Lee," an enlightening insight into two aspects of our relationship with God. Lee, with his accountant's mind, was good at this kind of comparison and contrast:

"The Father is both our God and our Father. His being our Father means that we are born of Him. His being our God means that we were created by Him. If we were only created by God but not begotten of Him, we are not in the church. By being born of God we enter into a life relationship and an organic union with Him. First, God created us, and then He begot us. Since we are created by God and born of God, our relationship with Him is twofold. First, we are God’s creatures, and He is our Creator. Then, we are God’s children, and He is our Father. If there were no children of God, there would be no church. We in the church have been both created by God and born of God. Thus, we are created as proper human beings and born as children of God. This is the church."

I'll stop there.

I will agree that this could be good. But let me suggest why even this "good Lee" may be off-the-mark.

When he says "If we were only created by God but not begotten of Him, we are not in the church" I think he has said something that may or may not actually be true, but based on the revelation available, cannot be asserted in such a manner.

Why? Because there are many aspects of the church. And there is the notion of being begotten. But it is not simply any one thing that is the reason we are the church or that without that aspect in the way Lee taught it there would be no church.

What is the church? It is many things. The gathering, assembly of believers. It is the body of Christ. It is many things. But nowhere is it stated that being "begotten of God" is a requirement for being in the church. Unless we are going to note that those that are truly what evangelicals commonly called "saved" are, by definition, begotten of God.

Now, as someone has pointed out, Lee does not entirely ignore the basic process of salvation. But do we think that when he says "begotten of God" here, he simply means anyone who is simply saved?

And I think that the answer is in the rest of his speaking/writing. If the church is "a group of people who are in union with the Triune God and are mingled with the Triune God" then we have to know what it is that he says is "in union with" and "mingled with" the Triune God. And there is much more than "begetting" (in the sense of salvation) in Lee's version of "union" and "mingled." It takes much more.

It takes being "practically" joined with a certain kind of outward church. You can't just argue that we are the church. You are only really the church if you are practically meeting on the ground of locality. And so many additional requirements. Like accepting the teachings coming from the LSM. Agreeing wholeheartedly with every teaching in that great body of work. Establishing a standing order for a preset amount of regularly-generated new materials.

Yes. Begetting sounds so good. But even if he only means "saved" when he says it, he has then withheld materially important information about what else you need to be "in the church." It is a little like accepting that some religious nut (any type) says that the USA is correctly a country in the northern half of the Western Hemisphere, but then goes on to claim that it is illegitimate because it is not entirely following the OT law of God, or Sharia (sp?) law. Yes, the first part is correct. But they want to add provisos according to their own imagination as to what is truly correct.

So, unless you are going to read Lee like fortune cookies and be sure to only read the good ones (and never even get a hint of the caveats, exceptions, provisos, quid pro quos in other of his cookies) then you are best off to avoid even the supposedly good cookies. Once you read a bad one (and don't know it) how do you separate the good from the bad when you discover that you've been reading (and eating) a mixture of good and bad cookies?

[OBW]

Cassidy,

You are correct that it is entirely everyone's personal right to take all, most, some, little, or none of Lee. But the concern is that if there truly are problems intertwined in the good, then are we to presume that those who see (or think they see) it simply keep quiet?

I'm not suggesting that you do or don't see it. Or that you do or don't agree. I'm not talking about you. Just the discussion about having this discussion.

But just as those who want to take it all have the right to take everything Lee said without a second thought, do others who think there is a legitimate reason to be concerned about that have no right to speak out?

It is almost the worst kind of postmodern "it's right for me" approach to claim that everyone can think what they want, but they should simply keep it to themselves — except for me because mine is not only right for me, but for you too.

I know that it is possible to assert that I/we are just doing that when we speak out against Lee. But we don't start with the presumption that we are simply right and only those who agree should speak. We think that there are legitimate cases to be made from scripture, so we make them. If someone can make the counter argument successfully, then we have reason to reconsider. Most of us got here by doing exactly that. We began to take in legitimate spiritual/scriptural data not pre/re-arranged by Nee, Lee, and the BBs/LSM and determined that the direct sources did not always agree with Lee. For some of us, we concluded that there was good reason to even get our good teachings somewhere else.

My take is that there is too much of a "package deal" in Lee's teachings to presume that hardly anyone will not either accept it all (at some level) or reject him altogether. He makes each piece fit with the next piece that ultimately brings the whole dispensing, ground, MOTA, Spiritual Authority thing to bear.

It is very difficult to cherry-pick Lee. It's not obviously good and bad fruit hanging in open view on a tree. It is a grey mixture of things mixed together in a lump of dough, a pot of thrice-reheated lentil soup, or stew. I will show my true colors and conclude that if you can find a clean, isolated, good teaching (meaning that two paragraphs later it is not altered beyond recognition) it is like an effort in dumpster diving. A needle in a haystack. It is so seldom that neatly separated from the junk and therefore even the good becomes questionable once the message is over.

When I read people that generate that kind of junk, I do it for something much less important that my primary theology and doctrines. It might be like taking the IRS position on something (contrary to what you think is correct) just to be sure that you have thought of everything. That is the highest place I give Lee. A source of alternate thought to at least consider rather than simply rejecting without a thought. Like Lee says to do with his teachings — accept them without a critical thought.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Personally, I like threads like this because it seems to follow the thought of Paul's admonishment in Hebrews 5.14, but these forums seem to have little tolerance for this strain of thought, as was again evidenced with the recent debate and subsequent departure of ZNP. Perhaps with all of Igzy's vast linguistic skills, he can succeed where others have failed.

Not to take this thread off track (God forbid), but Ohio could you please tell us how ZNP’s thread could be compared to this thread. How was “the strain of thought” in ZNP’s thread anything close to what we see here? ZNP all but admitted it was a kind of litmus test to see if some of us would see the error of our ways in “judging Witness Lee’s person” and “speaking evil of a brother”. When pressed to tell us what he meant or give concrete examples he passed on the chance by throwing out red herrings or putting forth arguments that were largely disconnected from the matter at hand. When pressed further he simply chose to withdraw. The bottom line is that ZNP, bless his heart, feels that the criticisms of Witness Lee are too harsh here on the Forum. This is all well and good. His voice is a good as anybody else’s. But the thread he started was not a genuine attempt at mutual discussions, but rather a not-so-veiled attempt to silence them, or at least redirect and/or distract. This is where, as the administrator, I have to step in and “defend” the Forum.

ZNP is a valued member of the forum as far as I’m concerned. I hope we will still hear from him. What he must understand is that what we are doing here has nothing to do with questioning Witness Lee’s salvation or “standing before the Lord”. There are “judgments” that the Lord has reserved for Himself at the Day of Judgment, and I think most of us have been around long enough to know what those are. The Word actually spells these judgments out for us. There are also “judgments” that we believers have been entrusted with, here on earth, here in the age of the church. I think we should be bold and not despise the trust that the Lord has entrusted us with. I am afraid that we abdicated this trust when we were in the Local Church. This was to the detriment of our souls and to the well-being of our families.

Now all this being said, I wholeheartedly agree that Igzy has started a very well thought out thread. Let’s dig in!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Here is a classic example from the last chapter of Lee's book A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing (1990 ISBN: 978-0-87083-562-9). First is a paragraph of what I would call "good Lee," an enlightening insight into two aspects of our relationship with God. Lee, with his accountant's mind, was good at this kind of comparison and contrast:

"The Father is both our God and our Father. His being our Father means that we are born of Him. His being our God means that we were created by Him. If we were only created by God but not begotten of Him, we are not in the church. By being born of God we enter into a life relationship and an organic union with Him. First, God created us, and then He begot us. Since we are created by God and born of God, our relationship with Him is twofold. First, we are God’s creatures, and He is our Creator. Then, we are God’s children, and He is our Father. If there were no children of God, there would be no church. We in the church have been both created by God and born of God. Thus, we are created as proper human beings and born as children of God. This is the church."

Originally Posted by OBW

I will agree that this could be good. But let me suggest why even this "good Lee" may be off-the-mark. When he says "If we were only created by God but not begotten of Him, we are not in the church" I think he has said something that may or may not actually be true, but based on the revelation available, cannot be asserted in such a manner.

Why? Because there are many aspects of the church. And there is the notion of being begotten. But it is not simply any one thing that is the reason we are the church or that without that aspect in the way Lee taught it there would be no church.

This is a distinct example of how one can be so much against WL, that he is willing to alter the basic truths of the Bible in order to reject every statement Lee has ever made.

How can one be part of the church, if not begotten of God? Is that not what tares are -- part of the church, but not born of God? Which aspect of the church includes the un-regenerated?

These are the kind of basic frustrations that ex-members face when visiting this forum. Many Bible teachers, apart from WL, have made similar statements as that which Igzy has quoted above. I certainly have no problem with it. If OBW's pastor had said it, he would have received it without hesitation.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a distinct example of how one can be so much against WL, that he is willing to alter the basic truths of the Bible in order to reject every statement Lee has ever made.

How can one be part of the church, if not begotten of God? Is that not what tares are -- part of the church, but not born of God? Which aspect of the church includes the un-regenerated?

These are the kind of basic frustrations that ex-members face when visiting this forum. Many Bible teachers, apart from WL, have made similar statements as that which Igzy has quoted above. I certainly have no problem with it. If OBW's pastor had said it, he would have received it without hesitation.

Actually how I read OBW's comment is that there is more to being the church then being begotten. And I would further suggest that "being begotten" needs finer definition. Does knocking on a door, reading the Mystery of Human Life to someone, having them say a canned prayer and baptizing them in their bath tub = they are begotten? Is that the magic formula?

But setting this aside if Witness Lee were honest he would say: if you are not in an LSM based church you are not part of the church because this is what he believed and practiced and passed on to the Blendeds. Thus the idea that they speak for "the Body" when quarantining Titus Chu, etc. regardless of what the Church in Cleveland says about it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a distinct example of how one can be so much against WL, that he is willing to alter the basic truths of the Bible in order to reject every statement Lee has ever made.

How can one be part of the church, if not begotten of God? Is that not what tares are -- part of the church, but not born of God? Which aspect of the church includes the un-regenerated?

These are the kind of basic frustrations that ex-members face when visiting this forum. Many Bible teachers, apart from WL, have made similar statements as that which Igzy has quoted above. I certainly have no problem with it. If OBW's pastor had said it, he would have received it without hesitation.

I tend to agree with Ohio. The first section of Lee's about God being God and Father is pretty innocuous. To say we need to be born again to be in the Church does not imply that we don't also need to be chosen, called-out, redeemed, sanctified, and everything else being brought into the Church implies. "Born again" plainly implies all that as well in Lee's theology.

Lee is clearly making the distinction between just being a creation and being a new creation. You cannot be a member of the Church spiritually without being a new creation, which means being born again. And you can't be born again without be chosen, called-out, redeemed, etc, etc. God can be your God if you are not born again, but he can't be your Father unless you are born again.

As with children, it's best to pick your battles. Don't make everything a fight or you might end up losing the war.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I tend to agree with Ohio. The first section of Lee's about God being God and Father is pretty innocuous. To say we need to be born again to be in the Church does not imply that we don't also need to be chosen, called-out, redeemed, sanctified, and everything else being brought into the Church implies. "Born again" plainly implies all that as well in Lee's theology.

As with children, it's best to pick your battles. Don't make everything a fight or you might end up losing the war.

Leaving aside the analogy to "fighting battles and winning wars," are we not attempting to positively affect those in the LC's? How can LC members hear our many legitimate concerns, when we also undermine what they rightfully hold dear? Must we not limit our "concerns" to those instances where LSM ventures beyond the boundaries of scripture? Are not we also compelled by scripture to afford our LC brethren every liberty within the limits of the Bible?

I am convinced that if we do not actively chart this course of action, then all the LC members we face will only fortify their strongholds. That's exactly what I did.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a distinct example of how one can be so much against WL, that he is willing to alter the basic truths of the Bible in order to reject every statement Lee has ever made.

How can one be part of the church, if not begotten of God? Is that not what tares are -- part of the church, but not born of God? Which aspect of the church includes the un-regenerated?

These are the kind of basic frustrations that ex-members face when visiting this forum. Many Bible teachers, apart from WL, have made similar statements as that which Igzy has quoted above. I certainly have no problem with it. If OBW's pastor had said it, he would have received it without hesitation.

There you go again.

I would suggest that you did not read all of my post and understand it in full, but instead took a single "cookie" of the text and made it into something that stood alone. If all I had wanted to say was that you didn't have to be begotten of God (in the sense of salvation) to be in the church, I would have stopped after that opening point.

But further on I admitted that if all Lee meant was to say that you have to be saved to be in the church, then that was good. But if that was the case, then you wouldn't find that garbage only two paragraphs later. And if I were trying to find the good in Lee, I wouldn't need to go to the last chapter of some book, and read only one paragraph and stop reading. I wouldn't need to be careful that the importance of being begotten was to be essentially cast aside and an overlay of becoming part of the Trinity (the Quadrinity?) made to be the important thing about the church.

Do you think that Christianity is considered to be part of that Quadrinity in the understanding of the majority of the LRC faithful as the result of hearing or reading that particular portion? Since virtually nothing of Lee is ever just written, but first spoken, do you think that those that heard that message went away impressed by the fact that since they are begotten of God, they are in the church? I really don't think so. Just as Lee probably said that one sentence because he knew he had to, then spent the rest of the time talking about other things, the popcorn testimonies afterward, along with the talk at the dinner table the next day, was probably about being part of the Quadrinity.

My point was that the only truly sound thing in his statement was a warm-up for the second act. He didn't write the chapter to tell us that we needed to be begotten of God to be in the church. He said we need to be begotten of God to slide the obviously correct in ahead of the questionable so they could go down together. Like the little pill pockets we put medicine in for our 15-year-old Chihuahua so he won't try to spit it out.

And if the "medicine" was really good for us, then that might be fine. (I'm still not sure that tricking anyone into believing even something true is a good thing.) But we are not talking about medicine. We are talking about putting a bunch of some non-nutritive, inorganic substance into just enough food that you will take it, then become convinced that the non-nutritive portion is the most important part.

Once you do that, then your very correct statement about needing to be begotten of God becomes almost irrelevant. So if you had read the whole thing as a package, you might have realized that I did not intend to suggest that Lee's one good statement, if taken alone, might not actually be good. Rather that it was part of a larger context in which its correctness became secondary to the garbage that it was being asked to support and convey.

As for what I think about the ones who teach at my church, including the senior pastor, I can assure you that I take exception to things they say all the time. I can give a specific example from the most recent sermon. My wife and I both considered it to be a very incorrect interpretation of scripture. But it did not teach anyone to feel superior, or to ignore righteousness.

The spiritual and moral significance of the things I take exception to from my current sources are in a completely different league from what I keep seeing here and recalling from my days in the LRC. I never heard all of Lee's teachings. I never read all of his books, even when there weren't as many. But the things that stand out in my mind from the time that I heard or read any of it back in the 70s and 80s are not the things that I want to be holding onto today. I don't recall much of the simple gospel, but rather the uber-wows of being God's chosen ones standing in for the majority of poor,poor Christianity that was all going to spend 1,000 years in a little dark closet.

Please read my posts as a unit, not like verses of scripture, all broken into discreet snippets to be understood alone. I do not say that the snippet Lee said was wrong. I say that contextually its correctness was misused and even lost in a sea of incorrectness. It becomes a lost ingredient in warmed over lentil soup.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

There you go again.

My point was that the only truly sound thing in his statement was a warm-up for the second act. He didn't write the chapter to tell us that we needed to be begotten of God to be in the church. He said we need to be begotten of God to slide the obviously correct in ahead of the questionable so they could go down together. Like the little pill pockets we put medicine in for our 15-year-old Chihuahua so he won't try to spit it out.

Well, now you are ascribing motive. And whether you are right or not doesn't change the fact that Lee mixed the good with the bad, which was my point and I think we can agree on that common denominator.

Why he did it is another matter. I'm sure he thought everything he said was true. He likely didn't say to himself "I'm going to speak this orthodox thing so that I can catch them off guard with the junk." Although that was the net effect whether he intended it or not.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, now you are ascribing motive. And whether you are right or not doesn't change the fact that Lee mixed the good with the bad, which was my point and I think we can agree on that common denominator.

Why he did it is another matter. I'm sure he thought everything he said was true. He likely didn't say to himself "I'm going to speak this orthodox thing so that I can catch them off guard with the junk." Although that was the net effect whether he intended it or not.

You could say that I was ascribing motive. It may not have been his motive. But it is essentially what happens over and over in his messages, books, etc. Nee did the same thing some times. Make a bunch of very simple, obviously true statements and then make just one more that is not so simple or necessarily true. Neither may have intended to do it as a trick. But it works as one. Once you are on the bandwagon of shouting "Amen!" to every one of them, it doesn't phase you to say "Amen!" to that last one even though you might not have done it if you had taken the time to think about it.

And even if it is soundly arguable that Lee did not intend to use the comment about begetting to butter us up for the 4-in-1 talk, it really is not hardly relevant to the meat of the chapter. The chapter appears to be about a "church" whose definition is not the same as what I understand it to be. Yes, you need "begetting" to get into either. But in Lee's, you really need much more. Begetting just turns on your GPS. You've got to travel some distance, watch out for some pot holes, and say the right phrase at the little window in the door when you arrive to really be "in the church" according to Lee. That "truth" in the early paragraph is lost in a sea of nonsense. Where is the value of truth when you have to dodge so much to find it? Even if Lee's motives were truly pure, the teachings were not.

And the result is the same.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee's late-in-life output more and more took on this characteristic of heady metaphysical speculation, as if he felt the need to push the envelope more and more to show he was still receiving "recovered truth."

Should a person risk taking in ideas like the "four-in-one God" in order to obtain the good things Lee has to offer? Why when there are so many decent, healthy and down-to-earth alternatives out there?

LRCers don't care. To them there is no bad Lee, even when he talks nonsense like the "four-in-one God." But more sober-minded people need such a filter, and unfortunately no warning label comes on LSM products.

It appears simply that the average Christian could not safely navigate the whirlpools of bad Lee to find the calm waters of good Lee. Unless someone takes his ministry and reinterprets it with the bad parts removed, it's just difficult to recommend it in any form.

Witness Lee would stress the orthodox fundamentals of the faith in order to ease the listener into complacency. We were following in the footsteps of the flock. We'd sing, "Just as I am/without one plea/but that Thy blood was shed for me" or "Blessed assurance/Jesus is mine/Oh what a foretaste of glory divine" and reassure ourselves that we were orthodox sons of Luther and Calvin and Wesley.

Then the revelations would start. And they were tricky because they were based on the Bible, and logic. "This shows us that", and who could argue? It surely seemed that this showed us that. Yet he would take us to the fringes of orthodoxy and even beyond.

To me this deviation from the paths of the ancients did two things. First, it satisfied the demand for "God's oracle", that Lee continually produce novelty. Then he could say, "No one else has seen this" or "nobody else teaches this". Second, it served to isolate the flock, and make his ministry the de facto "ground" of the local church. Because no one could go up to the microphone after the message and say, "But have you considered this?", or, "Well, yes you could make that argument. But my logic leads me to consider an alternative."

The safety in the counsel of many, per Proverbs, was gone. Now it was the revelation of God's oracle, centered on one man and his ministry. The 'oneness' idea had separated us from all other counsel (we'd been convinced that all other Christian fellowships weren't based on 'oneness'), and now the 'oneness' idea made us kowtow to the man at the podium. 'Good Lee' was just the preparation for 'Bad Lee' to come forth. It was the same person. The ground of oneness was merely preparation for the ground of ministry.

[aron]

I'd like to give an example. Lee used the Bible, and was if nothing else, a very logical person. So we thought we were safe.

But my point is that his logic wasn't perfect. And the lack of balancing counsel, of any kind of peer review, removed us from safety, and Lee's lack of logic, however small, eventually deviated and grew great. If you are off target by 1/4 degree, after ten miles of journeying you are far from your intended path.

In Acts chapter 2, Peter showed the Psalmist declaring fealty to God, and God's reward. But the Psalmist failed. Yet Peter realized that the Psalmist had a revelation of God's promise, and was "looking away" unto the promised Christ. Thus the statement of a fallen, feeble human being was actually revelatory of the One who never fell, and who made it fully into glory.

Yet elsewhere when the text repeated the pattern, for example, "He rescued me because He delighted in me", Lee merely said, "No, God didn't delight in David, nor did He rescue him. David rescued himself." Now this is true at one level, but Peter didn't stay there, but went deeper. But Lee refused to go deeper.

And my point is this: 2,000+ people sitting in a convention center said nothing. The 'oneness' forced them to accept something that surely some of them must have stirred uneasily about. On this forum, a participant of the "Psalms" training testified that he and his neighbor looked at each other and made wry faces. But nobody said anything. They were stuck. The 'Bad Lee' was now in charge, and nobody could do anything.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

In Acts chapter 2, Peter showed the Psalmist declaring fealty to God, and God's reward. But the Psalmist failed. Yet Peter realized that the Psalmist had a revelation of God's promise, and was "looking away" unto the promised Christ. Thus the statement of a fallen, feeble human being was actually revelatory of the One who never fell, and who made it fully into glory.

I'm not suggesting that "He [God] rescued Me [Christ] because He delighted in Me" is a superior reading to Lee's assertion that the feeble sinner David was merely exercising his fallen human imagination. I admit my reading is as ideosyncratic as Lee's was. We have Peter's reading of Psalm 16 in Acts 2; we also have Paul's corroboration in Acts 13, vv 34-37.

But we don't have an explicit NT citation of Psalm 18's "He delighted in me" (v19). What I offer is merely a reading: I see the word "delight" and I remember the NT: "This is My Son in whom I delight." And I consider.

What I object to is not Lee's reading, but an environment in which Lee's reading, his continual ministration on the Word, has become the ground of the church. So if Witness Lee taught, "This word is vain, fallen..." and my soul felt grieved, I had little recourse, under the strong expectation to be "one with the speaking", even if it seemed lacking.

Taking away worship of Witness Lee and his writings from Local Church s like taking away the worship of Mary from the RCC. Catholics see Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Lord’s Recovery sees that without Witness Lee there would be no church on earth today, since it’s needed “RECOVERY”! RCC also believes that Mary is “exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things”, Lords Recovery has exalted Witness Lee as MOTA, and the one to dictate all things regarding faith/practice/life of all believers.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Taking away worship of Witness Lee and his writings from Local Church s like taking away the worship of Mary from the RCC. Catholics see Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Lord’s Recovery sees that without Witness Lee there would be no church on earth today, since it’s needed “RECOVERY”! RCC also believes that Mary is “exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things”, Lords Recovery has exalted Witness Lee as MOTA, and the one to dictate all things regarding faith/practice/life of all believers.

Fellowship in the Local Churches is based on the work and person of Witness Lee. That is what makes them ministry churches.
To drop the ministry publications and just take the Bible as the basis of fellowship would seem logical, but to the brothers it would be unfathomable. How could the Local Churches function without Witness Lee's ministry?

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

To drop the ministry publications and just take the Bible as the basis of fellowship would seem logical, but to the brothers it would be unfathomable. How could the Local Churches function without Witness Lee's ministry?

Yes Terry, and why did those leaders believe their churches could not function without Lee's Ministry?

It was because Witness Lee, who had previously hoodwinked (and addicted) them into exclusively consuming ONLY HIS "Cargo", also warned those same leaders that a total collapse of their church would be the logical outcome!

Liar, liar pants on fire



Watch the 17sec video HERE.
Download it (4meg) HERE: https://www.johningalls.com/WiseMast...-Essential.m4v

P.S.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Yes Terry, and why did those leaders believe their churches could not function without Lee's Ministry?

It was because Witness Lee, who had previously hoodwinked (and addicted) them into exclusively consuming ONLY HIS "Cargo", also warned those same leaders that a total collapse of their church would be the logical outcome!

Liar, liar pants on fire



Watch the 17sec video HERE.
Download it (4meg) HERE: https://www.johningalls.com/WiseMast...-Essential.m4v

P.S.

PriestlyScribe, lets look at the churches that parted ways with Living Stream Ministry?
Have they collapsed? No they have not. Church in Toronto is still going on as are the churches in Moses Lake, Rosemead, etc to name a few.
I think the real reason why Local Church elders cling on to Lee's ministry, is the reaction Living Stream would respond with if a Local Church decided to drop the publications and just use the Bible.
The bottom line is money. Local Church affiliated with Living Stream Ministry only exist primarily for the benefit of Living Stream Ministry. Weekly church services are secondary to the ministry publications.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

PriestlyScribe, lets look at the churches that parted ways with Living Stream Ministry?
Have they collapsed? No they have not. Church in Toronto is still going on as are the churches in Moses Lake, Rosemead, etc to name a few.
I think the real reason why Local Church elders cling on to Lee's ministry, is the reaction Living Stream would respond with if a Local Church decided to drop the publications and just use the Bible.
The bottom line is money. Local Church affiliated with Living Stream Ministry only exist primarily for the benefit of Living Stream Ministry. Weekly church services are secondary to the ministry publications.

I would add that LC leaders (now I refer to those in both in Anaheim and Cleveland) use various techniques to make their member LC’s more dependent on their own ministries.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

PriestlyScribe, lets look at the churches that parted ways with Living Stream Ministry?
Have they collapsed? No they have not. Church in Toronto is still going on as are the churches in Moses Lake, Rosemead, etc to name a few.
I think the real reason why Local Church elders cling on to Lee's ministry, is the reaction Living Stream would respond with if a Local Church decided to drop the publications and just use the Bible.
The bottom line is money. Local Church affiliated with Living Stream Ministry only exist primarily for the benefit of Living Stream Ministry. Weekly church services are secondary to the ministry publications.

I would suggest that even when looking at Toronto and the others, to some extent Lee was right. The "recovery" as he defined it somewhat collapsed in those places. Why? Because they were no longer under the thumb of the LSM and Lee's dream was no longer realized in those places.

Reminds me of some of the lyrics from the spoof song "Star Trekkin'." One verse has Spock speaking to Kirk:

It's life, Jim,
But not as we know it
Not as we know it
Not as we know it
It's life, Jim,
But not as we know it
Not as we know it
Captain

So it would be "It's an assembly, Lee, but not as we knew it . . . ."

Surely some went on pretty much as before while others morphed into something different. Maybe more like the dreaded Christianity that was previously vilified.

The real question should be "what is the 'Recovery' and is that really what should define us?"

So, as Obi Wan would have said, "From a certain perspective, Lee is right." His vision of the "true church" in the recovery is such that no matter how much a defecting church may continue on almost identically to what it was before, it has left a hole in the "recovery" and has spiritually collapsed. (Of course, only under Lee's meaning of "spiritually collapsed.")

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Cal

Lee's late-in-life output more and more took on this characteristic of heady metaphysical speculation, as if he felt the need to push the envelope more and more to show he was still receiving "recovered truth."

Apparently this has been the final outcome with many of the so-called "Ministers Of The Age"?


Photo by PriestlyScribe - October 1987 Taipei, Taiwan

Modern Mystical Teachings and the Word of God. F. B. Hole

Chapter 6 Fanciful and Extravagant Ideas

While I believe that Lee's massive ego was a major factor here, the itching ears of worshipful MOTA followers may expect more and more tickling...lest their legs start walking...

P.S.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Apparently this has been the final outcome with many of the so-called "Ministers Of The Age"?


Photo by PriestlyScribe - October 1987 Taipei, Taiwan

Modern Mystical Teachings and the Word of God. F. B. Hole

Chapter 6 Fanciful and Extravagant Ideas

While I believe that Lee's massive ego was a major factor here, the itching ears of worshipful MOTA followers may expect more and more tickling...lest their legs start walking...

P.S.

I still hear talk about "new light" from the word in the LC. I'm sure it's a tickling thing in the hearts of the coworkers and the blendeds. I've heard them say things like "we are still receiving new light from the word." And then I've heard them also say things like "we still may receive new light," which is kind of dubious implying that probably Lee's contribution was a "closing" contribution to the revealed ministry light, etc. I'm not saying there's no light there either, and no new light, I believe their is, but it's very interesting to view it all in the context of how much they revered him like he was a direct oracle to God. It puts a lot of things in perspective and in their place when you finally see it all from that angle. It's like "oh no wonder they act like that, they uplifted this man to a near deity status." So of course they're going to sweep a ton of stuff under the rug regarding his personal life. Which is super culty behavior. At the very least you would have to say Lee reveled in his position and didn't do a great deal to quell their making him a celebrity. I'm not sure I see this behavior in the early churches with regards to Paul. I mean the entire book of 2nd Corinthians is all about Paul's constant suffering. Yet Lee was living like a celebrity. I guess God knows