Fooling the gate-keepers

[aron]

I'm interested in how a group, or a minister leading the group, gets to put their teachings past the gate-keepers of orthodoxy.

"Evil men have crept into our assembly unawares..." e.g. Jude 1:4

Now, Christ was arguably the most 'orthodox', who didn't overturn the law, but brought it back to the beginning, as it were. And I use Christ as the paradigmatic challenge to orthodoxy, the classic case as it were.

"Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood..."; or "The Scriptures say, 'Do X', but I say, 'Do Y'..."; or "Destroy this temple in three days and I will raise it up"... the gospels are full of provocative statements which challenge long-held belief. When the scribes brought up Moses, Jesus effectively said that He trumped Moses, because He was before Moses and therefore Moses was referencing Him. Wisdom, as it were, had now assumed corporeal or fleshly form, and could be consulted, not instead of scripture, but as the true arbiter of scripture.

And thus it continued. Arianism and the Nicene Creed, The Great Schism of 1054, the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century, and onwards.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I'm interested in how a group, or a minister leading the group, gets to put their teachings past the gate-keepers of orthodoxy.

"Evil men have crept into our assembly unawares..." e.g. Jude 1:4

So how does Satan cloak himself as an angel of light, and begin to teach and preach in the assembly?

First, the purveyor of non-orthodox novelty will attempt to isolate the sheep. The purveyor of the so-called new light will constantly reinforce the idea that everyone else is wrong, in darkness, is ignorant or confused, as opposed to we few who carry the special teaching. The teacher is therefore insulated from critical inquiry and examination. Only the initiates have the so-called sight to see the special revelation.

Second, the purveyor of non-orthodox novelty will tell the hearers that they are going back to some pre-corruption time, where rules were irrelevant. Like the Children of God cult teaching free love. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_International Before the fall, said CoG teacher David Berg, men and women were naked and not ashamed. Now, the teacher says, we're back (restored) at that special time, before corruption had touched humanity. Everything is peace, joy, love, and communality. In the LC, hundreds of years of church history could be ignored or by-passed, because we're back to a supposedly pre-corrupted church. Except for the special 'restoration' narrative, all Christian experience was suspect; it was 'degraded' with only the 'purified' narrative allowed into discourse.

Third, the purveyor of non-orthodox novelty will focus on sensory experiences versus 'dead letters'. The Bible can be explained away, if necessary. According to WL, a lot of it is "fallen men's concepts"; only WL with his special sight could sort the proverbial wheat from chaff. And anything that doesn't sit well with the fallen soul is then accused of bearing a "different flavor" than that found in the LC church. Any charismatic experience, while not necessarily non-orthodox in itself, can open the way to rampant subjectivism, in which one's feelings become the guide. And LC experience, while missing the speakings in tongues and 'works of power', is nonetheless clearly charismatic with the incessant chanting and shouting leading to overwhelming stimulus, and dull repetition leading to mental numbness.

In all three ways, the ordinary 'checks and balances' of safekeeping of the flock are circumvented.

Others?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I'm interested in how a group, or a minister leading the group, gets to put their teachings past the gate-keepers of orthodoxy.

"Evil men have crept into our assembly unawares..." e.g. Jude 1:4

Do they get past the gate-keepers of orthodoxy? Or do they dismiss them as those that have crept in unawares? And then tap into hope, that they can get us back to before the gate-keepers crept in.

You know. Cuz Witness Lee did this by dismissing Christianity as Christless. And it was our hope that made us accept it so easily.

So in the end it's disappointment with the status quo gate-keeping orthodoxy that allows such groups and ministers to get past them.

Like so many disenfranchised Christians that came into the LC in its early days of development here in America.

Some out here have gone back into these rusty old gates.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

So in the end it's disappointment with the status quo gate-keeping orthodoxy that allows such groups and ministers to get past them.

Like so many disenfranchised Christians that came into the LC in its early days of development here in America.

There is always a tension between those who defend the orthodoxy and those who think independently, anew, and afresh. Ideally the two work together, and don't get divorced. The tension then births creativity and orthodox novelty - "What God puts together, let none tear asunder..."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

There is always a tension between those who defend the orthodoxy and those who think independently

The history of "The Orthodoxy" makes me cringe. That's because it's been so hard headed in the face of facts, and has been proven wrong by science over and over again. Orthodoxy means "right belief" which by its very nature resists change.

What "The Orthodoxy" is has changed thru the Christian centuries, but whatever form it's taken it's always been a big drag on science and change, and persecutors of those that differ from their "right belief."

However, the current The Orthodoxy has been burned by science so many times that it now seeks to get in front of science, such as the recent encyclical on climate change.

But in religious matters The Orthodoxy is still the same bull-headed bunch they've always been. They alone have the "right beliefs."

In that regard Witness Lee had his own orthodoxy. Cuz only he had the "right beliefs," and all the rest of Christianity did not. And you were not allowed to remain in his movement unless you held his right beliefs.

But his orthodoxy was outside traditional orthodoxy, and many, maybe only some in the end, left Lee's orthodoxy to go back to the long standing tried and true orthodoxy.

But some that have left Lee's orthodoxy, that I know personally, including myself, have left orthodoxy altogether.

Now I and they cringe at the idea of orthodoxy, but any tension because of it is only on the part of the orthodox.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

The history of "The Orthodoxy" makes me cringe. That's because it's been so hard headed in the face of facts, and has been proven wrong by science over and over again. Orthodoxy means "right belief" which by its very nature resists change.

... in religious matters The Orthodoxy is still the same bull-headed bunch they've always been. They alone have the "right beliefs."

I understand your criticism, but I still maintain that the gate-keepers are the necessary link to history. Yes, they are reactive, and yes they are often wrong, but without them, we'd be lost to our imagination. Watchman Nee got caught by a bad idea, and it infected Witness Lee and many others. The arbiters of Orthodoxy are the defensive line against those infections.

The purveyors of non-orthodox novelty typically use a "poison pill" to get by the gate-keepers. Something that will allow the idea to survive past the critical point of scrutiny, and be accepted as valid, i.e. part of the divine revelation. In other words, the non-orthodox revelation contains within itself a code which separates itself from examination. In the case of Nee and the "local ground", the idea was to separate from "fallen" and "degraded" Christianity; thus the recipients of the idea were divorced from the protection of the gate-keepers and now could be led astray. The idea of a local ground for the assembly became the vector to separate the sheep, and once separated, the purveyors of non-orthodox novelty could then reverse field, declare the "Jerusalem principle", that all assemblies must report to HQ, with Witness Lee later declaring that all assemblies must be "exactly identical"... the local ground idea was the means whereby the sheep could be separated and then abused.

The gate-keepers are the followers of Jesus, who like the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews left the camp (13:13) of those who wouldn't accept Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus presented a novel interpretation of the scriptures, that He Himself was the promised Messiah, who would not only rescue the Jews but would gather into one all who would believe into His name. The gate-keepers are necessary to maintain this new camp of Jesus. They are the arbiters of what is "in" and what is "out". If you don't heed them, you will find yourself a Mormon, with a Mormon wife and Mormon kids and a Mormon church life and a Mormon-related job. Once the red flags start waving frantically in your head, it's too late. You got sucked in. (Or some other group - I just use Mormons as my non-orthodox poster child).

[awareness]

Bro aron,

The orthodoxy knocked out adoptionism, docetism, and many other heresies. Even burning many at the stake.

But long ago the orthodoxy lost its power. Else they would have burned Nee & Lee at the stake ... and us too. All of our tootsies would be toast.

The head of that orthodoxy has no power today, except to go around saying silly things, and loving everybody ... trying to act like Jesus.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

The history of "The Orthodoxy" makes me cringe. . . . and has been proven wrong by science over and over again.

. . . .

However, the current The Orthodoxy has been burned by science so many times . . . .

While I understand your concerns relating to things that have proved to be wrong according to science, those are not the aspects of orthodoxy that have been where the wolves we have dealt with have led us astray.

Ground, economy, authority, THE ministry, the nature of the trinity, the destiny of man, the meaning of letters to churches, and so on.

We were never really engaged in the aspects of theology that insists science is wrong.

Instead, we were told that orthodoxy relating to true aspects of the faith were wrong and that endless genealogies instead proved the superiority of a current teacher.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

I'm interested in how a group, or a minister leading the group, gets to put their teachings past the gate-keepers of orthodoxy.

Who are the "gate-keepers of orthodoxy"? Who is "keeping the gate"? What gate?

Orthodoxy: (of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

Why look to the traditions of fallen men and their "general" acceptance of truth? Why not make "truth" your standard? In other words, the better question is "how does a minister leading a group 'get to' put his teachings past the truth in God's word?"

The simple answer? Sin. Genesis 3 tells the story. God's enemy, Satan, deceived the man and woman, he was cursed by God and his demise under the heal of the woman was foretold. From that day forward, Satan has worked to further deceive mankind in his hatred of God and man...knowing his time is limited.

Satan's hatred is illustrated in Luke 22:31-32: And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: ...

Yes. "Evil men have crept into our assembly unawares..." Jude 1:4
BUT these evil men are not the enemy: Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Perhaps your gatekeepers are keeping the wrong gate.

Nell

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

...the better question is "how does a minister leading a group 'get to' put his teachings past the truth in God's word?"

The simple answer? Sin. Genesis 3 tells the story...

True. I concede this. Yet my argument on this forum all along is that bad ideas lead to bad behavior, unrelieved. If we have good ideas, we will still occasionally misbehave, but we'll confess, repent, and learn. If we have bad ideas we'll allow bad behaviors to continue. We'll adopt sayings like, "We don't care about right and wrong." Or, "Maximum Brother - even if he's wrong he's right". We'll think that sin must be covered, ignored. ''The Hive must go on'' becomes our controlling programme.

"I'm proud to be an ostrich with my head stuck in the sand". In other words, I am blind. My discernment is gone.

"God doesn't see any iniquity in Israel." Oh, really? Tell that to the prophet John, on Patmos. He didn't see any iniquity in the seven churches in Asia?

Originally Posted by Nell

Perhaps your gatekeepers are keeping the wrong gate.

I was deliberately vague, and general, about the disposition of my gate-keepers and the proverbial gates. They could be cult-watchers like Walter Martin. Or Paul, in the assembly in Antioch, remonstrating with Peter in front of everyone (see Galatians 2). Or your own conscience, and discernment: when the FTTA trainer told us, point-blank, "don't waste your time" with the poor and the widows, but go for the Caucasian college students, a red flag popped up. But I repressed it, because I was already "sold out for the church life". Even when the church life was wrong (i.e. it contravened scripture, either in letter or in spirit) it was right. Why? Because I agreed that it was always right. I'd allowed a bad idea to take root and command the internal conversation in my head. This distorted my discernment.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

Perhaps your gatekeepers are keeping the wrong gate.

Nell

Good point Nell. In John 10 Jesus says he is the gate. Perhaps the gatekeepers are keeping from that gate.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

In John 10 Jesus says he is the gate. Perhaps the gatekeepers are keeping from that gate.

Perhaps the gatekeepers are pointing to the gate. "To all who wish to enter into eternal life, this is the way."

Likewise, thieves, robbers, and wolves are turned away. Or they should be. See e.g. Rev 22:15.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Perhaps the gatekeepers are pointing to the gate. "To all who wish to enter into eternal life, this is the way."

Then they're not gate keepers they are gate pointers.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Then they're not gate keepers they are gate pointers.

Jesus is the gate. He is the way out of darkness, and His light shines back to the light of the Father of glory. Our job, once we receive Him, is to be "heralds" who declare Him to others. Paul said that he was "a herald and an apostle and a teacher". (2 Tim 1:11). But we all are, I believe. There are professional evangelists like Billy Graham, pointing to the Gate of Heaven, but we all are, to some degree.

And we all are Gate-keepers, as well. We all are to exercise discernment, as to what we let in. There are some like Walter Martin who take it upon themselves to professionally examine and declare who is "in" and who is "out", but we all do it, every day. We all are amateur gate-keepers. What we let in, becomes what we declare. If a person, or an assembly lets in bad teachings, then the person or assembly presents bad teachings to the world. Don't you think Satan would love to distort the testimony? I do.

My theme on this forum for probably 2 years now has been that Jesus is the One who kept Himself pure, and that we the impure and unclean have the way back to the Father through a revelation of this One, who He is and what He did. And yes we are to conduct ourselves in imitation of this One whom we confess. Even if our imitation is poor, we are to try.

The drum I've been beating for 2 yrs is that one of the main predictions about this One was that He was to be the spotless pure Lamb of God (1 Pet. 1:19; cf Lev. 1:10). Jesus exercised His Gate-Keeping function perfectly, without failure. He never got fooled. Satan continually tried to cut deals with Him, and was rejected every time. We who try to follow should pay attention to this, I think.

Originally Posted by Psalm 18

He reached down from on high and took hold of me;
he drew me out of deep waters.
17 He rescued me from my powerful enemy,
from my foes, who were too strong for me.
18 They confronted me in the day of my disaster,
but the Lord was my support.
19 He brought me out into a spacious place;
he rescued me because he delighted in me.

20 The Lord has dealt with me according to my righteousness;
according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me.
21 For I have kept the ways of the Lord;
I am not guilty of turning from my God.
22 All his laws are before me;
I have not turned away from his decrees.
23 I have been blameless before him
and have kept myself from sin.
24 The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness,
according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.

I don't have WL's teachings on the Psalms in front of me, so I can't say what he taught about this passage from Psalm 18 in particular. But I do know that WL repeatedly said that these words (the Psalms) were vain, because nobody is clean before God. Wrong. Jesus Christ is clean before God. Our faith is not in ourselves, but in Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all and God blessed forever, amen. I feel like if you don't get this basic stuff you will invariably mis-aim, if you try to be a teacher in the church. Eventually you'll teach stuff that merely distracts and stumbles people from the revelation of Jesus Christ. And we all as gate-keepers should exercise discernment, to reject such speaking, and not to pass it along so that it can stumble others.