The Gospel Versus "God's Economy"

[UntoHim]

For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
2 Corinthians 11:2-4

Nothing could be more serious than a Christian group or Christian teacher to teach/preach what the apostle Paul dubbed "another Jesus" and "another Gospel". The stakes couldn't be higher - the very salvation of those who would imbibe such doctrines, and the Church's "sincere and pure devotion to Christ". It is clear that to Paul another Jesus was another Gospel, and another Gospel was another Jesus. The Gospel is not just the good news about Jesus, the Gospel's very content and constitution is the wonderful Person and finished work of Jesus Christ. What other good news has "the power of God"? (for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes Rom 1:16) Although the main items of the Gospel can be found in the words of the Lord Jesus himself as recorded in the four Gospels, we do see a further development in the Acts of the Apostles and in the epistles of Paul, Peter and John, and it is in the interpretation of these epistles that we see Witness Lee's departure from the historic Christian Gospel.

Please take note that I have placed this thread within the "Apologetic Discussions" forum board. Let's all try to do our best to keep the name-calling and emotional appeals out of the conversation as much as possible. If a particular teaching of Lee comes under attack, and one feels it necessary to come on the defense of Lee and his teachings, please do your best to keep your arguments within the bounds of a biblically based apologetic discussion.

[aron]

I think I started on the idea of the incessant drumming of a "New Christ" in the LC veering dangerously toward a "different Christ" which Paul warned against. My argument was primarily twofold: first was from Amcasci's testimony where he got excited for Jesus, almost went into the "Children of God" cult, then ended up in the Local Church of Witness Lee. Basically he was young and enthusiastic and naive. His title of his essay was "Zealous and misled" and I felt that the zeal of the impressionable new ones might lead them to be taken by "different Christ" than the ones the apostles preached.

I showed a quote from the LSM on the Wiki "Local Church Controversies" where they essentially blamed the "cult" label on the post-Jonestown hysteria. WL was putting out "new and fresh" Christ and it got lumped in with the cults. I made the point that the reason WL got a following in the Jesus Movement days was because he was pushing something new, which was attractive, and the reason he got called cultic ten years later was because he was pushing something new, which now wasn't socially popular. The cultural pendulum had swung and Lee and Company were on the wrong side of it.

Then I switched gears and asked if Christ got old somewhere, that He had to become new? Was this a mis-reading of the NT accounts? Were perhaps we, the Old Creation, supposed to become new? Christ became flesh on our behalf, and as such was the Last Adam, and took oldness to the cross, but once crucified did it have to happen again and again?

Or was the "new Christ" of WL just a re-labeling that would make the Madison Avenue merchandizers envious?

But really I was just thinking aloud. I tend to paint in broad brush strokes conceptually, and by the time you get to poking my ideas publicly they often deflate. So I'm not on record as accusing WL of selling a "different Christ" but rather that there's danger, and we should examine his "new Christ" paradigm carefully.

And lastly I noted that the "new and fresh" Christ in the LCs didn't seem to care about the poor, and tolerated the elevating of persons above the flock, with the attendant lording over, and seemed to be pretty tolerant of public abuses by leadership (who were today's "Moses" and "Noah" and got a special pass, it seemed). So there was some grist for the mill.

But I'm not sure if I started anything positive. It's like the "cult" thing, it seems to have such a large subjective element involved in the evaluation that arguing for one side or another might be fruitless contention. So I apologize if I seemed to be taking a definitive side. I was just presenting an argument for public evaluation.

[Amcasci]

Yes...no doubt in my mind that Lee preached another Jesus. Galatians is indeed central in this discussion. What was the heresy? It was that the obedient life, suffering and death of Jesus is necessary but is only the jumping off point for bigger things. It is not enough to trust in Him alone, you must add something to this Jesus in order to be a first class Christian. In the Galaian context it was that one must also become a Jew to be a first class Christian. A gentile converted by Paul needed to become complete by being Jewish. Lee and so many others in holiness and deeper life mode see the work of Jesus as a necessary jumping off point to something greater. In Lees case it is the local ground, membership in the local church, and thus being an overcomer. In holiness movements it is to be "sanctified" which is taught to be something different from being justified in christ. In Pentecostalism it is speaking in tongues and on it goes. It is the Roman Catholic error all over again. Christ plus something else equals a higher level of Christianity. The rest of us are just "saved" but we will suffer the loss of the 1000 year millieniel thing.

The result guilt, arrogance, sectarianism...those who buy into this two tiered faith will always be in doubt about where they stand with christ. It is hard work being an overcomer. You will always wonder if I deed you are an overcomer even if you are in the movement.

Those of us who are only "saved" must do our 1000 year purgatory.

Again I say it is Rome all over again. In roman theology Christs work takes away original sin and now that you are back to a neutral condition , except for a little concupiscence, you must work together with Christ to be justified. Since you will not likely make it, there is purgatory as an ironic safety net.
This is another Jesus just as Lee has another Jesus. Anyone can be saved but only the few, the brave and the local church adherents will be in the

Let me add that if you do not hear from me for a bit it is because I am about to depart for Amsterdam and Paris.


Art

[TLFisher]

Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, “Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?” But when Jesus heard this, He said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matthew 9:10-13

The local churches practice a different gospel than what's seen in this passage of Matthew 9:10-13. Generally viewed and termed as "good material", attention and efforts are labored on college campuses. One of the goals is to attract college students and eventually sent them as college graduates to FTTA.

[Freedom]

I have mixed feelings on the issue, and I see valid points to both sides. If nothing else, certainly feel that the LCM as a whole is treading in dangerous waters.

The whole idea that they have a distinction between the "low gospel" and the "high gospel" is a big red flag to me. Also, as Terry mentioned, the practice of trying to determine who is the "good material" is contrary to the gospel that Jesus taught and has always been a bit disturbing to me.

The reason that I don't say with certainty that I think the LC teaches another gospel, is because I believe at heart those in the LC are willing to teach the basic gospel to an unbeliever. A lot of what goes on seems situation dependent.

I was involved once in a home meeting that didn't have any of the "good material" type, and that was a positive experience. There were several who were brought to the Lord in that through that home meeting.

With some of the campus work activities that I was involved in, I saw a number of examples of exclusiveness that served as proof in my mind that they weren't concerned with just teaching just the gospel. There were politics at play. There were not-so-hidden agendas that were being carried out. I have mentioned how I was at Bible studies where brothers used the time to try to get newcomers to use the RcV Bible, and it wasn't always clear if some of these newcomers were even saved. Why wasn't this time used to introduce them to the gospel instead?

Another situation I recall is when a college-aged boyfriend/girlfriend couple came to a meeting and out of the blue a brother told them they were best off "dropping the relationship" so they could focus their hearts on the Lord. They never came back . Anyways, from what I've seen, many opportunities where the gospel could have been preached we're ruined by these ideas that other things were necessary, like getting people to use a certain Bible or meddling in someones private life. I don't know how common some of these notions are, but I've seen enough indication that there are many in the LC who are not satisfied with simply introducing someone to the gospel.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

I find no evidence that Lee taught a gospel that is different from the one taught in Galatians.

The "high gospel" vs "low gospel" seems to, despite unusual lingo, fits very well into Paul's presentation of the gospel in Romans which climates in Rom. 8 (esp. v. 29 -- being conformed to the image of the Firstborn Son of God).

The 1,000 years outer darkness, which admittedly is thinly supported but arguably admissible soterio-eschatology, has nothing to do with Lee's presentation of the gospel. People are generally quite charitable on what is acceptable eschatology.

If there is one problem with Lee's presentation of the gospel, it is what is known as "easy-believism". In my locality, the baptism candidates are not asked to renounce their sins nor profess Jesus as Lord and Saviour. They were only tested on whether they call, "O Lord Jesus".

The other things that are brought up in this thread e.g., localism, is irrelevant to Lee's presentation of the gospel. Even LSM has to agree that Titus Chu is a regenerated child of God and will end up in the New Jerusalem.

Interpretations on rewards and punishments and their gradations that don't tantamount to eternal perdition are fair game in all evangelical factions of Christianity.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The whole idea that they have a distinction between the "low gospel" and the "high gospel" is a big red flag to me. Also, as Terry mentioned, the practice of trying to determine who is the "good material" is contrary to the gospel that Jesus taught and has always been a bit disturbing to me.

The reason that I don't say with certainty that I think the LC teaches another gospel, is because I believe at heart those in the LC are willing to teach the basic gospel to an unbeliever. A lot of what goes on seems situation dependent.

I would say if pressed in the local churches, the gospel we see in the New Testament is taught, however practices indicate having distinctions and preferences.
As a result it's the ones seeking higher education are the ones sought after in the campus gospel work. Ones who forego a college education aren't seen as "good material" and as a result are often neglected.
Why is it college students are deemed "good material"?
Is it potential of higher income translates to more giving for the ministry?
Is it higher education equates to better grasp of the "high gospel" and thus embracing the vision Witness Lee's ministry has been promoting?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

Yes...no doubt in my mind that Lee preached another Jesus. Galatians is indeed central in this discussion. What was the heresy? It was that the obedient life, suffering and death of Jesus is necessary but is only the jumping off point for bigger things. It is not enough to trust in Him alone, you must add something to this Jesus in order to be a first class Christian. In the Galaian context it was that one must also become a Jew to be a first class Christian. A gentile converted by Paul needed to become complete by being Jewish. Lee and so many others in holiness and deeper life mode see the work of Jesus as a necessary jumping off point to something greater. In Lees case it is the local ground, membership in the local church, and thus being an overcomer. In holiness movements it is to be "sanctified" which is taught to be something different from being justified in christ. In Pentecostalism it is speaking in tongues and on it goes. It is the Roman Catholic error all over again. Christ plus something else equals a higher level of Christianity. The rest of us are just "saved" but we will suffer the loss of the 1000 year millennial thing.

The result guilt, arrogance, sectarianism...those who buy into this two tiered faith will always be in doubt about where they stand with christ. It is hard work being an overcomer. You will always wonder if indeed you're an overcomer even if you're in the movement.

Those of us who are only "saved" must do our 1000 year purgatory.

Again I say it is Rome all over again. In roman theology Christs work takes away original sin and now that you are back to a neutral condition, except for a little concupiscence, you must work together with Christ to be justified. Since you will not likely make it, there is purgatory as an ironic safety net.
This is another Jesus just as Lee has another Jesus. Anyone can be saved but only the few, the brave and the local church adherents will be in ..

This is worth bringing forward, because Amcasci is referencing the argument for being "God's best" that I see Trapped mentioning.

Originally Posted by Trapped

I know this is anecdotal, but it is, much to my utter depression, absolutely my experience in the local church. This is from "growing up in God's best", and being "in the center of God's move on the earth". I was cheated out of years and years of a happier life, and moreover I was cheated out of years of a positive relationship with the Lord.

The case against the gospel of Nee & Lee, in this vein, is twofold: first that one must add some extra "holiness" to make it. So you get a two-tiered system, of 'overcomers' and the 'just Christian' folks who only sit quietly in the pew and hear defective "low gospel" messages on Sunday morning. In this case Nee was affected by Keswick and the continental mysticism; through Nee, we got a mystical, subjective Christ. But this subjectivism was probably heavily distorted by the fallen human soul. (I think the operative question is - how deeply? How to measure how deeply? Can only God make this assessment, ultimately?)

Second issue, and related, is that Jesus taught that you should take the least place, and consider yourself "less than" your peers; let God elevate you in due time. Don't be presumptuous for some pride of place that sin may yet defeat you.

Consider, for example, the supposed "apostle of the age" who put his admittedly nonspiritual son in charge of the ministry business affairs, who ran the local churches with an iron fist, and when wrong-doing was discovered, it was covered over and involved parties and witnesses were either whitewashed, shipped out of town, or black-balled and expelled - so the fruit of this teaching is seen, with pride of place giving way to egregious ongoing sins. The subjective "holiness" folks ironically get the least transformation (at least that is what it looks like from the outside)

Lee, who took care to call Christianity "deformed" and "darkened" and "satanic" and "Christless" - and of course he and the Little Flock/Local Church were not - now gets lumped in with the "different gospel" folks - the pseudo Christian groups like the JWs and LDS and SDA. Whether or not this is objectively provable or not, I think that's what we see Amcasci presenting.(And it's behind the complaint against Nee & Lee on the Faith Saves website that recently Ohio queried about. . . about where Nee went to Keswick with Miss Fischbacher).

[awareness]

The different gospel charge against Lee is the fact that Lee went by the New Testament books, while the early original gospel didn't.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

The different gospel charge against Lee is the fact that Lee went by the New Testament books, while the early original gospel didn't.

In the original gospel, if we're to believe Acts 3, Peter and John went up to the temple for daily prayer (ostensibly they didn't know that God had given up on the physical temple). And they healed a man there, a Jew (since Peter & John were good Jews who didn't talk to gentiles), and preached the gospel afterward to the crowd, and thousands got saved (Acts 4:4), all law-keeping Jews (who hadn't yet read the NT, because the NT books hadn't been written).

In Acts 22:12 Paul said that he was baptized by a law-keeping Jew, and we wonder if Paul had forgotten his own admonitions - or hadn't he written them yet? - that law-keeping was in vain, and grace now ruled.

Yet Peter healed the man. So go figure. The fruit reveals the tree. Doesn't it?

Acts 2:16 "By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has completely healed him, as you can all see."

[Trapped]

Is the idea of a "processed" Triune God found elsewhere in Christianity?

I was reading in an LC ministry book recently and this phrase, "...God Himself [was] processed to be the life-giving Spirit" struck me.

God was processed. The processed Triune God.

I understand that God "went through a process" on earth. I am fine with that. But to say that "God was processed" hits me with a clang.

We can easily say "I am going through the process to apply to the army". Or "I am going through the process to become a lawyer." But no one in their right mind would ever then say, "I was processed to be a lawyer. I am a processed lawyer."

Is this another weird Lee-ism not found elsewhere? I did a google search for "the processed God" and all results relevant to the meaning of that phrase came back LSM-related. Is there some benefit to presenting God in this way?

I can't explain it but it's such an odd structure that it depersonalizes God for me. "God was processed" somehow removes God's participation in the process and makes it seem like some independent process was applied to him, like processed ham on a conveyor belt, rather than His being an active participant? I don't know. Hoping for others' input.

[Drake]

Trapped,

Are you hung up on the concept or the term that encapsulates the concept?

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Trapped,

Are you hung up on the concept or the term that encapsulates the concept?

Drake

How 'bout some input bro Drake, concerning putting God thru a processor.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

How 'bout some input bro Drake, concerning putting God thru a processor.

Happy to bro awareness... once I understand where Trapped is hung up... concept or terms.



Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Happy to bro awareness... once I understand where Trapped is hung up... concept or terms.

Waiting with bated breath ... on the edge of my seat. Stop being slippery.
You could comment on both.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

God was processed. The processed Triune God.

I understand that God "went through a process" on earth. I am fine with that. But to say that "God was processed" hits me with a clang.

I think I get your point, or something of it; like a depersonalised commodity getting abstracted, like traders talk of goods on the stock exchange; like "monies" or "soybean futures". However much the LC waves its orthodoxy card, they've left us with a cardboard-tasting sandwich. It doesn't satisfy.

Coming from Protestant background, I liked reading Nee but didn't enjoy Lee as much. His language was stilted to me, and I watched as this stilted language became codified and canonical - see, "The Collected Works of Witness Lee", vols 1-148. As if some peculiar and idiosyncratic phraseology could convey holiness. Just read the outline 3 times. Or 6, or. . .

But I put up with it because I was "on the local ground", and this decidedly non-local author apparently came with the local ground.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Is this another weird Lee-ism not found elsewhere? I did a google search for "the processed God" and all results relevant to the meaning of that phrase came back LSM-related. Is there some benefit to presenting God in this way?

Yes, it is a weird Lee-ism not found elsewhere. And yes, it does depersonalize God. Lee also used his theology to depersonalize our relationship with a loving Savior and our heavenly Father.

Lee used his theology, with phrases like this and "God's Economy," to convince all his followers that he alone was the MOTA, and that all Christianity was hopelessly flawed and defective. This "new theology" has become a source of great pride for LC folk, as Lee taught them to boast in their exclusive terminology.

Discard both the concept and the term which encapsulates the concept. Neither is biblical. Neither has value.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Is the idea of a "processed" Triune God found elsewhere in Christianity?

Yes, many Christian groups teach about incarnation, human living, resurrection and ascension in this way.

Originally Posted by Trapped

I was reading in an LC ministry book recently and this phrase, "...God Himself [was] processed to be the life-giving Spirit" struck me.

God was processed. The processed Triune God.

I understand that God "went through a process" on earth. I am fine with that. But to say that "God was processed" hits me with a clang.

WL's MO, trying to convert standard Christian teachings into ones that slap you in the face and then pretend that it is some great revelation on his part that has never been revealed before.

Originally Posted by Trapped

We can easily say "I am going through the process to apply to the army". Or "I am going through the process to become a lawyer." But no one in their right mind would ever then say, "I was processed to be a lawyer. I am a processed lawyer."

Are you saying WL was not in his right mind? WL wanted to differentiate himself from all other Christian teachers. That supports the whole MOTA, one publication, and there is no other light elsewhere themes he was always using.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Is this another weird Lee-ism not found elsewhere? I did a google search for "the processed God" and all results relevant to the meaning of that phrase came back LSM-related. Is there some benefit to presenting God in this way?

Ten thousand believers who think you are the only one with a vision of God's plan. All of whom will spend $100+ on LSM books, trainings, and translations.

Originally Posted by Trapped

I can't explain it but it's such an odd structure that it depersonalizes God for me. "God was processed" somehow removes God's participation in the process and makes it seem like some independent process was applied to him, like processed ham on a conveyor belt, rather than His being an active participant? I don't know. Hoping for others' input.

Not that odd. Perhaps he couldn't sleep, turned on late night TV and saw an add for a food processor and then the light bulb went off. "I too could be a salesman". English was not his first language so probably copied much of the salesman's pitch changing a few key terms.

[aron]

In Acts 2:32 Peter says, "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.".

We may say that Peter witnessed a 'process'. But when I read Peter's story, I see the focus on a person: "this Jesus". The Jesus Peter knew. The person Peter was with, whom Peter loved. This Jesus was still alive and very much with Peter, not through theology but through presence.

The danger on considering the abstract, "God's economy" view is that at some point we lose the presence of person. This is suggested as well by the many young ones who "can't make it", who are told they are now defective. The "subjective Christ" of the ministry zealots doesn't work for them; it just doesn't, sorry. So are they the failures, here? They have just as much right to their own subjective impressions of what the 'processed God' does for them, as what it did for their parents. And these young ones have spoken with their feet, and have left.

To me this is the clearly evident fruit - many cast off, disillusioned, frustrated young people. They got an idea, an ideology, but unless they give themselves to promote the ministry the warm fuzzies die away alarmingly fast. When they were young, 8, 10, 14 years old, they did what they were told. They went to the meetings and went through the motions. But nothing came. Eventually the ministry demands and the perceived pay-offs didn't match, so they left.

At the Lord's Table meeting, they heard, "Ohhh Loooord Jeeeezusss… we just care about youuuuu! We just love youuuuuu!", but when the meeting is over they heard talk about the ministry and "the Lord's move" and "building the Body" (of ministry acolytes) and so forth. The young ones see the disconnect, the hypocrisy 24/7. So they bail. . . all the orthodoxy props don't hold it up. To them, it's an empty lifeless shell.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

In Acts 2:32 Peter says, "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.".

We may say that Peter witnessed a 'process'. But when I read Peter's story, I see the focus on a person: "this Jesus". The Jesus Peter knew. The person Peter was with, whom Peter loved.

Why is it dangerous to look at the word from a different angle? It seems to me the biggest danger is telling people how not to read the Bible and what the Bible does not say.

Originally Posted by aron

The danger on considering the abstract, "God's economy" view is that at some point we lose the person. This is suggested as well by the many young ones who "can't make it", who are told they are now defective. The "subjective Christ" of the ministry zealots doesn't work for them; it just doesn't, sorry. So are they the failures, here? They have just as much right to their own subjective impressions of what the 'processed God' does for them, as what it did for their parents. And these young ones have spoken with their feet, and have left.

I don't see the connection. In every Christian group of any size (tens of thousands or more) there will be young people who "can't make it" yet many of those other groups don't have this teaching. I think it is a very big stretch to say that this teaching results in losing view of the person of Jesus, etc.