Network Norwich and Norfolk

aron · 12-24-2014, 05:57 PM

http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/

Some time ago I got into a discussion with the Liites about "Is Jesus the Father" on a British website.

Go to the "Forum" section, and see the "Guestbook" part, and you will see the thread. Their modus was to try to crush me with volume, but you notice they really couldn't think for themselves. They just wanted to cite Lee. The idea that I could question and critique Lee as Lee did to others made them very uncomfortable.

There were a bunch of threads but the moderator erased them all, because it got pretty vitriolic. They really weren't very "Christian" once they realized that I was and ex-Liite who had deserted the cause.

But it was pretty eye-opening for me, for sure. Enjoy.

aron · 12-26-2014, 06:01 AM

The starting point of the thread was Isaiah 9:6. The Son is called the Father, therefore the Son is the Father.

My reply was that if you use Lee's logic elsewhere in the scripture, the logic falls apart. So they restrict the interpretive template to their "special" verses, and trust that when they cover other verses, and use other interpretive guides, then you will forget what they did with the first. When I pointed out to them the failure of Lee's revelation (i.e. logic) to carry over to other parts of scripture, they suggested that I go back and prayerfully re-read Lee's writings. Basically they won't acknowlege what you say.

So you have certain interpretive rules being applied to give meaning to certain verses. But those same rules are not used elsewhere. The impression is that they don't really care for consistency, for rules, for scripture. They only care for promoting their theology. And the basis of the theology is not on any inherent consistency, but that it was promulgated by "the prophet", Witness Lee. And to question Lee is to question God's anointed servant. So you just prayerfully read Lee's writings until you "get it".

But I found that if I prayerfully read the Bible, then Lee's thought constructions fall apart. To be called by a name doesn't mean that you are that thing. The Roman Centurion in Luke 7 was called by Caesar's name, and was "also a man under authority". But the Centurion wasn't actually Caesar. And in the Book of Revelation Jesus promised to write upon the overcomer His new name. That doesn't mean that the overcomer is Jesus. "He will be called by My Name" means identification, ownership, and yes, "oneness". But as I pointed out in the thread, we also are "one" but I am still me and you are still you. We are one, but we are still distinctly identified. "I" and "you" still function.

But they weren't interested. Lee didn't address this, so they had no need to. If Lee didn't talk about it, then it didn't exist. The thrust was to be subservient to Lee's speaking, not to the Bible or God.

aron · 12-26-2014, 06:17 AM

Further thoughts on Isaiah 9:6...... Exodus 23 has an angel of whom it is said, "My Name is in him." So Moses et al were to listen, and be obedient. But later, in Exodus 32, he is called "My angel", and in Exodus 33 he is called "an angel". So the messenger is probably not Jehovah.

The Lee programme seems to conflate everything into a blender. Why? I don't know. I guess it jives more comfortably with his "dispensing" idea. But the whole idea of pronouns seems to get blurred away. "I" become "you" and "He" becomes "Me" and "the Father" becomes "the Son" etc. Everything becomes blended away into homogenous nothingness. Everything is everything.

For me, the idea of agency rescues us from this sea of grey. The agent bears the sender's name (or Name), but is not to be confused with the sender. The angel told John "don't do that! I am your fellow servant" (Rev 19:10, 22:9). See also Peter in Acts 10:26, and Paul in Acts 14:15. The servant is not to be confused, or conflated, with the Master, even though the servant bears the Master's name, and is "one" with the Master, and is even an extension of the Master's will and authority.

aron · 12-26-2014, 07:51 AM

I guess my main contention with the Liites wasn't whether or not the Son was the Father, but the idea that Lee alone was able to think. If I tried to use my brain and examine the scriptures and see if in fact things were so, and I found them to be at least possibly otherwise than "the apostle" had claimed, then to the Liites that showed that I was "dark" and "ambitious" and "rebellious" and so forth. Only Lee could come to scripture, and consider, and reason, and postulate. The rest of us were to "prayerfully read" his output and conclude that through His "oracle", God had spoken to us. I find this to be presumptuous, arrogant and elitist.

My thoughts are not superior to those of Lee, nor are they closer to "truth". But they are mine, as Lee's were his.

aron · 12-26-2014, 09:53 AM

I guess another way to put my problem with the theological presentation of the Liites is that it fronts an idea that I find problematic, even moreso than the question of whether the "persons" of the Godhead can be conflated. Arguments can be made both for Jesus as the Father, and not, and have been, and unfortunately will be continued.

In some sense I allowed myself to weigh in on a subject with no real resolution simply to point out that there are other ways to understand the words of scripture than what "the ministry" has presented us with. This challenges the ministry itself, and not merely its cognitive output. Because the ministry loves to be first. The ministry is the alpha and omega, and once it has pronounced "this equals that" in the holy word, then the matter is supposedly settled. So for little old me or you to question the supposed "last word" on the Bible is taken as an affront to God Himself and the divinely arranged chain of authority.

But I see this supposedly divinely mandated organizational hierarchy as merely the latest example of "Diotrephes loves to be first." Remember when all the disciples were arguing over which of them were greatest? If Jesus had not intervened, surely it would have either resolved into one Alpha Dog and the rest being subservient, or it would have broken them up into factions. Jesus stopped it quick, and would also have us do that here, so I think. Anyone who insists on the last word in the ongoing conversation is revealing their source, and it isn't God.

So I simply put my opinion against that of Lee, to counter "the ministry" on the Network Norwich and Norfolk website, not because I felt my premises to be inherently superior to those of Lee, but to say, "Not so fast." There are other possibilities besides his conclusion.

And I would ask, Why would we buy into such a system? Obviously we know Lee's motive: "Diotrephes loves to be first". But why would we allow Diotrephes to dominate the assembly? I think for 2 reasons. First because it relieves us the hard chore of thinking for ourselves. Lee has spoken and that is it. Easy. Comfortable. No uncertainty. God has spoken through His oracle. Secondly, those with ambition now have a pathway. So sycophants and lackeys and yes-men now have a center, and a focus for themselves. Ironic that the ones who most loudly and repeatedly castigated the "ambition" of people like MR now are the spokesmen of the system. But not really shocking when you think about how the system is set up.

OBW · 12-29-2014, 07:17 AM

I have probably mentioned it here on this forum recently, but when I realized that Jesus prayed that we would be one as he was one with the Father, that is a fundamentally different oneness than anything that Lee taught. If we humans can be one in the way that the Father and Son are one, then there is no way that the Father and the Son are simply the same "person."

In fact, it looks more like evidence that the version of the Trinity that Lee called almost tritheistic is probably more correct than his brand of oneness theology.

Freedom · 12-31-2014, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I noted the same thing, that Lee's entire corpus was a mass of assertions with really little or nothing behind it, or underneath it, as the case may be. Just confident assertions. Kind of like a confidence game, I suppose.

When I challenged it in my own feeble way I was met with: A) I was a jealous deserter who left the cause because my selfish ambitions were thwarted; B) an appeal to carefully and prayerfully re-read the voluminous quotes. But really no attempt to address my objections, or alternative explanations. So I concluded there was really nothing there; just one man's confidence. Amazing how far he took it.

(As an aside, I saw the words "controversial speculation" in the NIV translation of 1 Timothy and re-considered some of my own writings of late, re: the presentation in scripture of the unique Holy Spirit overlapping with plural, ministering spirits, i.e. angels. Glad to see that cautionary point from Paul in its NIV translation. Duly noted.)

It has been my experience that the LC is utterly lacking when it comes to apologetics. Yes, they will tell you what verses support all their teachings, but that is it. There have been many times I was put in a position where I have had to try and clarify or defend a LC doctrine to an outsider, and in most cases, I totally failed. Why? I think it has to do a lot with not knowing the reasoning behind certain teachings. I know all the verses that supposedly "prove" their teachings, but in the real world, people can easily find the flaws or holes in Lee's logic.

In most cases, when someone starts questioning things too much, the typical response is to either end the conversation or try to skirt the issue. I have never seen any interest in debating people or examining certain teachings according to the scriptures. The LC does have their Affirmation and Critique journal, but even that appears to be rather one-sided, because it becomes quickly evident that they aren't open for dialogue with anyone who doesn't agree with them. Just the other day I was reading through Norm Geisler's writings on the CRI's defense of the LC, and I came across a letter Norm wrote to Ron Kangas. Here is an excerpt:

Quote:

He used my name (Norm) in his article “The Economy of God: the Triune God in His Operation” in the LC Journal called, Affirmation and Critique: A Journal of Christian Thought. So, I assumed (wrongly) that he was open to dialogue. Had he answered my questions, he could have clarified LC views. Not answering them leaves a shadow over their position.
...
http://www.normgeisler.com/articles/...ocalChurch.htm

I think that letter summarizes the issue very well.

Lisbon · 01-06-2015, 05:52 PM

A few months before leaving LC i was with two elders and one other "saint." I'm somewhat of a so-called scientist so was asked a question which I had no idea the answer. I stated I had no idea and further said the same about some of the teachings of the Bible and proceeded to quote one. The two elders just looked at me and did not answer one word. That no answer spoke to me of the "don't question what we say." I'm an old man so I think they might be a little hesitant to be too forceful.

This may be of no consequence at all but the month I made the decision to quit, my monthly check ceased. I've been back several times in the last two years but no money to the LC.

Lisbon

12-24-2014, 05:57 PM	#1
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,631	Network Norwich and Norfolk http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/ Some time ago I got into a discussion with the Liites about "Is Jesus the Father" on a British website. Go to the "Forum" section, and see the "Guestbook" part, and you will see the thread. Their modus was to try to crush me with volume, but you notice they really couldn't think for themselves. They just wanted to cite Lee. The idea that I could question and critique Lee as Lee did to others made them very uncomfortable. There were a bunch of threads but the moderator erased them all, because it got pretty vitriolic. They really weren't very "Christian" once they realized that I was and ex-Liite who had deserted the cause. But it was pretty eye-opening for me, for sure. Enjoy. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

12-26-2014, 06:01 AM	#2
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,631	Re: Network Norwich and Norfolk The starting point of the thread was Isaiah 9:6. The Son is called the Father, therefore the Son is the Father. My reply was that if you use Lee's logic elsewhere in the scripture, the logic falls apart. So they restrict the interpretive template to their "special" verses, and trust that when they cover other verses, and use other interpretive guides, then you will forget what they did with the first. When I pointed out to them the failure of Lee's revelation (i.e. logic) to carry over to other parts of scripture, they suggested that I go back and prayerfully re-read Lee's writings. Basically they won't acknowlege what you say. So you have certain interpretive rules being applied to give meaning to certain verses. But those same rules are not used elsewhere. The impression is that they don't really care for consistency, for rules, for scripture. They only care for promoting their theology. And the basis of the theology is not on any inherent consistency, but that it was promulgated by "the prophet", Witness Lee. And to question Lee is to question God's anointed servant. So you just prayerfully read Lee's writings until you "get it". But I found that if I prayerfully read the Bible, then Lee's thought constructions fall apart. To be called by a name doesn't mean that you are that thing. The Roman Centurion in Luke 7 was called by Caesar's name, and was "also a man under authority". But the Centurion wasn't actually Caesar. And in the Book of Revelation Jesus promised to write upon the overcomer His new name. That doesn't mean that the overcomer is Jesus. "He will be called by My Name" means identification, ownership, and yes, "oneness". But as I pointed out in the thread, we also are "one" but I am still me and you are still you. We are one, but we are still distinctly identified. "I" and "you" still function. But they weren't interested. Lee didn't address this, so they had no need to. If Lee didn't talk about it, then it didn't exist. The thrust was to be subservient to Lee's speaking, not to the Bible or God. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

12-26-2014, 06:17 AM	#3
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,631	Re: Network Norwich and Norfolk Further thoughts on Isaiah 9:6...... Exodus 23 has an angel of whom it is said, "My Name is in him." So Moses et al were to listen, and be obedient. But later, in Exodus 32, he is called "My angel", and in Exodus 33 he is called "an angel". So the messenger is probably not Jehovah. The Lee programme seems to conflate everything into a blender. Why? I don't know. I guess it jives more comfortably with his "dispensing" idea. But the whole idea of pronouns seems to get blurred away. "I" become "you" and "He" becomes "Me" and "the Father" becomes "the Son" etc. Everything becomes blended away into homogenous nothingness. Everything is everything. For me, the idea of agency rescues us from this sea of grey. The agent bears the sender's name (or Name), but is not to be confused with the sender. The angel told John "don't do that! I am your fellow servant" (Rev 19:10, 22:9). See also Peter in Acts 10:26, and Paul in Acts 14:15. The servant is not to be confused, or conflated, with the Master, even though the servant bears the Master's name, and is "one" with the Master, and is even an extension of the Master's will and authority. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

12-26-2014, 07:51 AM	#4
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,631	Re: Network Norwich and Norfolk I guess my main contention with the Liites wasn't whether or not the Son was the Father, but the idea that Lee alone was able to think. If I tried to use my brain and examine the scriptures and see if in fact things were so, and I found them to be at least possibly otherwise than "the apostle" had claimed, then to the Liites that showed that I was "dark" and "ambitious" and "rebellious" and so forth. Only Lee could come to scripture, and consider, and reason, and postulate. The rest of us were to "prayerfully read" his output and conclude that through His "oracle", God had spoken to us. I find this to be presumptuous, arrogant and elitist. My thoughts are not superior to those of Lee, nor are they closer to "truth". But they are mine, as Lee's were his. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

12-26-2014, 09:53 AM	#5
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,631	"Diotrephes loves to be first" I guess another way to put my problem with the theological presentation of the Liites is that it fronts an idea that I find problematic, even moreso than the question of whether the "persons" of the Godhead can be conflated. Arguments can be made both for Jesus as the Father, and not, and have been, and unfortunately will be continued. In some sense I allowed myself to weigh in on a subject with no real resolution simply to point out that there are other ways to understand the words of scripture than what "the ministry" has presented us with. This challenges the ministry itself, and not merely its cognitive output. Because the ministry loves to be first. The ministry is the alpha and omega, and once it has pronounced "this equals that" in the holy word, then the matter is supposedly settled. So for little old me or you to question the supposed "last word" on the Bible is taken as an affront to God Himself and the divinely arranged chain of authority. But I see this supposedly divinely mandated organizational hierarchy as merely the latest example of "Diotrephes loves to be first." Remember when all the disciples were arguing over which of them were greatest? If Jesus had not intervened, surely it would have either resolved into one Alpha Dog and the rest being subservient, or it would have broken them up into factions. Jesus stopped it quick, and would also have us do that here, so I think. Anyone who insists on the last word in the ongoing conversation is revealing their source, and it isn't God. So I simply put my opinion against that of Lee, to counter "the ministry" on the Network Norwich and Norfolk website, not because I felt my premises to be inherently superior to those of Lee, but to say, "Not so fast." There are other possibilities besides his conclusion. And I would ask, Why would we buy into such a system? Obviously we know Lee's motive: "Diotrephes loves to be first". But why would we allow Diotrephes to dominate the assembly? I think for 2 reasons. First because it relieves us the hard chore of thinking for ourselves. Lee has spoken and that is it. Easy. Comfortable. No uncertainty. God has spoken through His oracle. Secondly, those with ambition now have a pathway. So sycophants and lackeys and yes-men now have a center, and a focus for themselves. Ironic that the ones who most loudly and repeatedly castigated the "ambition" of people like MR now are the spokesmen of the system. But not really shocking when you think about how the system is set up. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

12-29-2014, 07:17 AM	#6
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	Re: Network Norwich and Norfolk I have probably mentioned it here on this forum recently, but when I realized that Jesus prayed that we would be one as he was one with the Father, that is a fundamentally different oneness than anything that Lee taught. If we humans can be one in the way that the Father and Son are one, then there is no way that the Father and the Son are simply the same "person." In fact, it looks more like evidence that the version of the Trinity that Lee called almost tritheistic is probably more correct than his brand of oneness theology. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

01-06-2015, 05:52 PM	#8
Lisbon Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 117	Re: Network Norwich and Norfolk A few months before leaving LC i was with two elders and one other "saint." I'm somewhat of a so-called scientist so was asked a question which I had no idea the answer. I stated I had no idea and further said the same about some of the teachings of the Bible and proceeded to quote one. The two elders just looked at me and did not answer one word. That no answer spoke to me of the "don't question what we say." I'm an old man so I think they might be a little hesitant to be too forceful. This may be of no consequence at all but the month I made the decision to quit, my monthly check ceased. I've been back several times in the last two years but no money to the LC. Lisbon