Witness Lee has Seven Gods

[aron]

The title of this thread is humorous, and not really serious. I don't know how many Gods Lee had.

Let's see:

1. Living Stream Ministry
2. Philip Lee aka "The Office"
3. Full-Time Training
4. Daystar/Timothy Lee
5. "Let's go Linko!!"
6. Youth Propagation Groups
7. Vital Groups/New Way/Door knocking
8. Etc, etc.

Really; I don't know. For that matter I don't know how many "gods" I have, or anyone else. But I wanted to adapt the title from a Witness Lee essay I read many years ago: "The Bible Answer Man has Three Gods". Remember that unreadable miasma? I felt I had to get something out of my time and effort, so I cribbed the title for my own.

My purpose in starting the thread is to make one point: that Witness Lee, contrary to his assertions, really didn't care about the teaching and fellowship of the apostles. Whatever overlay, or interpretation, or 'spin', that he wanted to put on the Word of God, that was fine with him. What did the apostles say, think, or teach? Irrelevant. Just do the ritual obeisance to the idea of "continuing steadfastly in the teaching of the apostles", then we do whatever we want.

Here is the formula: Whatever Witness Lee thinks = the teaching and fellowship of the apostles. Got it?

The last time saw some Living Streamers one of them told me about "The Ministry". Here was his lineage: Jesus, Paul, Watchman Nee, Witness Lee. I am serious. The fact that there was a 1,900-year gap between Paul and Watchman Nee was superfluous. I suppose that if I had pressed him he would have supplied Luther and Darby. But I didn't bother.

[aron]

I got interested in this subject because of the Seven Spirits before the throne in the Book of Revelation. Lee said it was the One Spirit, intensified sevenfold. But what did the elders of the church teach on this? Did Lee do any background check? Or was his logic the over-riding factor?

I have to confess here that I have not read nor heard the messages from the Life-Studies on Revelation. I just have my good old Recovery Version, where the footnote says "Seven Spirits = One Spirit, intensified sevenfold" But where did this formula come from? Are the seven angels in Revelation actually one angel, intensified sevenfold? Or the four living creatures actually one living creature, intensified fourfold? Or the twenty-four elders, one elder intensified twenty-fourfold? No? Why then, is this math applied to the seven spirits? Because Paul taught that there is only One Spirit along with One Faith and One Baptism, and Lee's logic overlaid the two subjects?

If so, then why are there seven spirits in Revelation? And, back to my main point: what did the apostles and church elders teach? Here, again, lacking access to the inner workings of Lee, I have to assume that because of the degradation of the church -- you know, with Constantine and all -- that Nee/Lee get "carte blanche" to skip over 2,000 years of church teaching and just reinvent the Bible whole cloth using their logic, with maybe Kittel and Vincent and Alford to back them up (assuming they agree), with the resulting interpretation equaling "the teachings and fellowship of the apostles". Neat, huh?

Well, it's not so neat. There was a guy called Clement of Alexandria, born around the year 150. Seems that Clement's writing held that the oral tradition of the elders was that the seven spirits were in fact the seven angels who stand before the throne in Revelation 8:2. Seeing that Clement was a lot closer to the apostles than Nee or Lee was, we should at least mention this, and consider it, before rejecting it (if in fact we do).

The truth is that probably we can't know for sure. It does seem attractive, at one hand: the seven archangels who stand before the throne "go out to all the earth" a la Revelation 5:6 and Zechariah 4:10. See, for example, Luke 1:19 And the angel answered him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news."

Admittedly, this interpretation brings a whole host of other difficulties. What, for example, happened to "The Holy Spirit"? What, other than ostensibly the oral teachings of the church elders, gave credence to this interpretation for Clement (and, following him, another Alexandrian writer, Origen)? How trustworthy is Clement, anyway? And how strong/widespread is the idea of an "oral tradition" among the early writings in the church?

None of this seems to matter to the Living Streamers. Just repeat after me: The teachings of Witness Lee = The teachings and fellowship of the apostles. Got it? No need to complicate things with what actually was written by the church fathers.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Got it? No need to complicate things with what actually was written by the church fathers.

Or by the writers of scripture.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

None of this seems to matter to the Living Streamers. Just repeat after me: The teachings of Witness Lee = The teachings and fellowship of the apostles. Got it? No need to complicate things with what actually was written by the church fathers.

Where did you get that Aron? Now, I admit having heard the phrase "the teachings of the apostles" and "the fellowship of the apostles" was puzzling? Was it meant to imply the current teaching and fellowship from the co-workers = The teachings and fellowship of the apostles? What would a current local church attendee say? Furthermore I would like to hear from Testing123 or Cassidy on their understanding?
If you base the phrase on what the church fathers wrote (James, John, Paul, etc), there would be a contradiction what the church fathers wrote verses what the ministry practices.
How would it be received if you prophesied at a Lord's Table meeting, "we as the recovery are not practicing the apostle's teaching"?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

I admit having heard the phrase "the teachings of the apostles" and "the fellowship of the apostles" ... Was it meant to imply the current teaching and fellowship from the co-workers = The teachings and fellowship of the apostles? What would a current local church attendee say? "?

"Continuing steadfastly" was a catchphrase from the FTTA. They had a publication titled that. I don't know if they still put it out.

http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/6510535


The phrase is from Acts 2:42 "And they devoted themselves [i.e. continued steadfastly] to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."

Originally Posted by Terry

If you base the phrase on what the church fathers wrote (James, John, Paul, etc), there would be a contradiction what the church fathers wrote verses what the ministry practices.

How would it be received if you prophesied at a Lord's Table meeting, "we as the recovery are not practicing the apostle's teaching"?

Well, back in the day, if Witness Lee said that we are not practicing the apostles' teaching, everyone would groan and do the equivalent of falling on their faces. However, if anybody but Lee said that, they would be called 'negative'. I suppose it is the same today.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

The phrase is from Acts 2:42 "And they devoted themselves [i.e. continued steadfastly] to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."

I think you misunderstood my point. It was not until the last 5-10 years did it become part of the Local Church lexicon.
When used wthin Local Church circles, is the phrase meant strictly towards Biblical text or is the phrase intended to be used extra-Biblically?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

When used within Local Church circles, is the phrase ["continuing steadfastly in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles"] meant strictly towards Biblical text or is the phrase intended to be used extra-Biblically?

That is precisely my point. The ministry of Witness Lee is held to be effectively the equivalent of the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, given that church writings from the second century onward are ignored (unless they can be used to buttress "The Ministry"). So to be precise in my answer, I would say it is meant strictly toward the Biblical text as it has been interpreted and explained by Witness Lee, which thus makes it de facto extra-Biblical.

Let me go back to Psalm 34 for example. Lee held that David rescued himself from Abimilech and the camp of the Philistines. This is in contrast to God's rescue of David from the lion, the bear, from Goliath, from Saul, etc. Where does this dichotomy come from, save Witness Lee? Has any other writer from the second century onward made this kind of effort, parsing the Psalms into "revelatory" versus "natural" texts? If not, how is Lee's effort construed as continuing steadfastly in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles? And how are we doing so, if we are following exclusively this ministry as the equivalent?

Psalm 34, and David's experience in the Philistine camp, is not some minor detail to be ignored at Lee's word. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale, just as Jesus was in the heart of the earth, so was David among the Philistines. Can you imagine what the dark forces emanated as they crowded around the descended soul of Jesus the Nazarene? Jesus had been made sin on our behalf, and died in a despised and shameful way for us. He went into Hades because of us, and was joined by the defeated ranks. They said to Him, "You also have become weak, as we are; you have become like us." (Isaiah 14:10).

And then Jesus, in death, somehow cried to the Living God. "Father I praise You; You will not let the ocean cover Me; You will not let the pit close its mouth over Me" (Psa 69). And God inclined His ear to the cry of His Righteous Son. Jesus was the true Son of Oil: He lived (as) God's Word so thoroughly in His human life that He could speak it in death and its power over Him, and us, was broken. The Logos, the Word, exhibited and declared the Father even in the midst of Hell. We were there, and He took us out (see Ephesians 4, on His taking "captivity captive").

The story of David with Abimilech should not be dismissed so lightly. Unless the Living Streamers can show Witness Lee carrying on the tradition of previous Christian expositors in dismissing the Biblical text as "natural" versus "divinely revelatory", we should be wary in receiving these as a continuation of the apostles. Or we, in following his lead, risk dismissing the very Christ revealed therein.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The title of this thread is... not really serious. I don't know how many Gods Lee had.

I know that by entertaining the idea that the "seven spirits before the throne" are in fact seven separate spirits (i.e. angels), then I am the one open to the charge of having seven Gods. So perhaps the title is doubly unfortunate. That is where having a sense of humour will get you!

Really; I don't know the answer. Don't know if anyone can answer it definitively. But if we really do care about the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, then we should take seriously the writings of those who came before (especially, I aver, those whose ministry closely followed after the apostles).

Another example that bothers me is in Psalm 34:4, where David said "The LORD delivered me" from Abimilech king of the Philistines. Witness Lee said, No, David rescued himself. My reply is, Okay; when David told Saul in 1 Samuel 17:37 that the Lord delivered him (David) from the lion and the bear, and would also deliver him from the Philistine giant Goliath, was he also in error? Did David deliver himself from the lion and the bear, and from the hand of Goliath? Or did God deliver him? And if so there, why not also from Abimilech?

So I come back to the question: from where did Lee get this interpretation, this reading? His (fallen, natural) human logic? Any other teachers out there dismissing David's words thusly? Or is Lee's opinion, standing alone, here equivalent to the "teaching and fellowship of the apostles"?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

... if we really do care about the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, then we should take seriously the writings of those who came before (especially, I aver, those whose ministry closely followed after the apostles).

I remember being told how many books Watchman Nee had read, that he had a collection of 3,000 books, and so forth. Then, of course, Lee was presented as his spiritual heir. So it ended up being, "Brother Lee said..." and that was it. No need to question, to struggle, to weigh alternatives, to see what others had written. Nee already did that. Lee was presenting us with "the cream of the crop". So exclusively following Lee's teachings, perforce, became equivalent to "continuing steadfastly in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles."

Eventually, long after leaving the "exclusive" Local Church fellowship, I began to ponder things in the Bible, which I didn't remember pat answers for, from my time there. So I began to search, and behold the variety of excellent writings and ministries, literally dozens of them, stretching back even to the first generations after the apostles!

So as the Bible began to unfold before me, I realized that I had been cheated. Not in the fact that Lee & Nee were so short, but in that their ministry had been presented to me as "all-inclusive", as encompassing all the good teachings of the past 2,000 years and straining out all the dross and unhelpful speculations.

Today I hold that as rubbish. That is like being told that you don't need to go any further than 3rd grade, because there are only 24 letters in the alphabet, and ten digits in the number system. Every thing you need to know is in your 3rd grade schoolbooks. What an absolute rip-off.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

So as the Bible began to unfold before me, I realized that I had been cheated. Not in the fact that Lee & Nee were so short, but in that their ministry had been presented to me as "all-inclusive", as encompassing all the good teachings of the past 2,000 years and straining out all the dross and unhelpful speculations.

Similarily I have found the ministry as published by Living Stream is not comprehensive as the publisher's employees make it out to be. Rather the ministry is at times expedient and at other times bypassing scripture that it is not considered profitable is it would cause members in the local churches to ponder instead of giving a repetitive amen.
I now consider it is unlikely there is any minister who can adequately write a thorough Bible commetary. I do believe Witness Lee tried to the best of his capabilities with the Life Studies, but I also feel there's portion of scripture passed over when it may have been personally uncomfortable.
In many non-LC assemblies I do feel saints feel uneasy when a word is given that makes them feel uncomfortable.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

I have found the ministry as published by Living Stream is not comprehensive as the publisher's employees make it out to be. Rather the ministry is at times expedient and at other times bypassing scripture that it is not considered profitable...

Here is another example of bypassing, downplaying, ignoring, or explaining away scripture. In Hebrews 10:10, the author speaks of the offering of the body of Jesus Christ as "once and for all" eliminating the need for sacrifices of animal blood. Hebrews 10 also quotes Psalm 40:6-8, from the Greek Septuagint (the prevailing text at that time), which includes the phrase "a body you have prepared for me".

In the Recovery Version, in Psalm 40 they use the Masoretic text, which didn't exist until several hundred years after the time of the NT's composition, and which says "ears you have dug (i.e. opened) for me". The RcV footnotes on Psalm 40 say that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews changed the Psalm 40 text to say "a body you have prepared for me", because it fit his argument of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Either this is really sloppy scholarship, or I don't know what. I hesitate to think what could have provoked such a statement. Let me continue to ask: did any church father teach such things? Or is "Watchman Nee = Witness Lee = the teaching and fellowship of the apostles" our guide for accepting this statement?

All they needed to say was "The Septuagint (LXX) version reads ..." End of story. Instead we get this strange soft-shoe dance about how digging an ear equated to boring a hole in the servant's ear, relating to obedience. Now, maybe this is so, maybe not, but all we know for sure is that "Brother Lee said". At its most rudimentary level (i.e. LXX vs Masoretic textual sources) the "Brother Lee said" approach misses the mark. Instead we get: The author of Hebrews modified the OT text to suit his/her argument???

[aron]

I would like to show how George Lucas' company Lucasfilm, owner of the "Star Wars" franchise, is actually representative of "gospel hucksters" who merchandise the gospel. In the Star Wars films, the "Trade Federation" is a massive and incessant merchant conglomerate which enslaves formerly independent, peace-loving planetary federations in its quest to rule the universe. I remember the discussion in 2005, post-Iraqi invasion, of how "Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" was a not-too-veiled dig by Mr. Lucas at the "Evil Empire" of the (Republican?) U.S. military/industrial complex. In the film, the politicians are "bought out" and acquiesce to lies, violence and oppression, and one of the film's main characters says with obvious disdain, "So this is how democracy ends". All the t.v. commentators had a field day out of the coincidence of the film's script to the ostensible manipulation of the U.S. Senate to rubber-stamp the Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld Iraq invasion.

But what actually struck me was that the Hollywood folks probably represented the "Trade Federation", the "Evil Empire", as anyone else! What is more emblematic of the United States today than our cultural hegemony? Satan(Hollywood) makes billions of dollars selling overstuffed tripe, which is warning people that Satan is merchandising them, selling overstuffed tripe! Genius! First you rob people, then you sell them a story telling about the robbery! George Lucas just sold Lucasfilm to Walt Disney last year for $4 billion, which is a pretty good reward by the Trade Federation for his storytelling efforts on its behalf.

To transpose that on "Local Church Discussions", the Trade Federation's ultimate weapon, the "Death Star", is actually a representation of the merchant/prophets who warn(for a fee) the gullible sheep of the coming doom. Ten bucks and you can watch Angels at Armageddon, folks! Step right up, buy your ticket!

The key is in the money changing hands... the exchange is something like: "Your will benefit from my prosperity". If you give me ten bucks, you will be amused for 90 minutes watching people wave light-sabers for the Republic, or you will see "The New Jerusalem" and the Highway to Zion in "God's New Testament Economy" in living color! Thus the story becomes a stand-in, an exchange, for reality itself. The story becomes a monetized product, and the birthright can then be exchanged for a bowl of soup, Esau-like.

Remember the incessant and pervasive merchandizing in Revelation 18? Remember how the Beast is obsessed with buying and selling? Remember his version of "One Publication Policy" in Revelation 13? Remember how Simon the Magician tried to exchange money for power with Simon Peter in Acts 8? Step right up, folks, get your God-man socks! On sale this week only! Get your Crystallization wall calendars! Who cares if we can't tell the Masoretic from the Septuagint? There's merchandise to move here! Come on in, folks... grab your ticket and take your seat!

The moral of the story is: when money changes hands for the gospel, the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) becomes the Rule of Gold (He who has the gold makes the rules). Money becomes the route to power; when you have the gold you can "buy the truth". See Ezekiel 27 and 28: e.g., "When your wares went forth out of the seas, you filled many people; you did enrich the kings of the earth with the multitude of your riches and of your merchandise." The marketplace seems to be spreading the truth, but the spreading-for-cash distorts the truth and ultimately ruins it.