"Heavenly Language"

[Peter Debelak]

Because the "Organic Salvation" thread has a "unique language of the LC" discussion, I thought it best to create a new thread on this topic.

If I may, I would like to use the example of how Witness Lee discussed the Trinity in order to highlight good arguments from both sides of the debate.

Many have taken Witness Lee to task for "confusing the persons of the Trinity" (indeed, it was part of the mission of the last forum). Yet I personally thing the notion of "person" when it comes to the Trinity is too "nice and tidy" - not capturing all of what the Bible has to say about the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit.

In that light, here's Witness Lee (in the book Divine and Mystical Realm):

Understanding the second (Christ) and the third (the Spirit) of the Divine Trinity has been most bothersome and troublesome. Who is Christ? In answer to this question, most Christians would say that Christ is the Son of God. However, many believers do not realize that Christ is not merely the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16) but also the firstborn Son of God (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:18; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 1:5). How could the only begotten Son become the firstborn Son? As the only begotten Son He must be the only Son and cannot be the first, and as the firstborn Son He is the first Son and thus cannot be the only Son. How should we explain this?

Theologians claim that the persons of the Trinity should not be confused. Nevertheless, we need to ask certain questions. Is Christ only the Son and not also the Spirit? Is the Spirit only the Spirit? Is the Spirit not also related to Christ and involved with the Son? Another question concerns the seven Spirits (Rev. 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6). According to Revelation 5:6 the seven Spirits are the seven eyes of the Lamb. Are the seven Spirits and the Lamb one person or two persons? Surely They are two, yet the seven Spirits are the seven eyes of the Lamb. Are They one or two? If we say that the Lamb and the seven Spirits as the seven eyes of the Lamb are one, others, insisting that the Spirit is the Spirit and the Son is the Son, will accuse us of confusing the persons of the Divine Trinity. But in Revelation 5:6 the third of the Divine Trinity is the eyes of the second. How, then, can the Spirit be separate from the Son? Are your eyes separate from you yourself? While your eyes are looking at someone, you are looking at that person. No one would say, “Only my eyes are looking at you; I myself am not looking at you.” Your eyes are you. For your eyes to look at something means that you yourself are looking. These are brief illustrations of the shortages of the theology in today’s Christianity.

Because the matters of the Son and the Spirit in the Divine Trinity are very difficult and complicated, we have been compelled to give Christ a particular title—the all-inclusive Christ. Christ is all-inclusive because He is everything. He is God, He is the Father (Isa. 9:6), He is the Son, and He is the Spirit. According to the revelation in the New Testament, the Father is embodied in the Son (Col. 2:9), and the Son is realized by the Spirit (John 14:17, 20). Thus, the Son is the embodiment of the Father, and the Spirit is the realization of the Son. This surely is a divine and heavenly language.

On the one hand, Witness Lee lays out a compelling argument that the traditional "language" about the Trinity is inadequate. Thus, he attempted - from a well-intentioned place - to try to capture the more nuanced Biblical record. There may still be room for disagreement, but this impulse to use extra-biblical language specifically in an effort to more closely capture what the Bible says, is notable.

But he then takes another step. Not only is his articulation "more accurate" or somesuch, he makes the claim this is a "divine and heavenly language."

Thus, in one fell swoop he both attempts to engage the Bible itself more accurately and then immediately elevates his articulation to mythical proportions.

The first impulse is good. The second, dangerous and unnecessary.

It may or may not be objectively true that his articulation is "divine and heavenly." But in either case a believer doesn't need to know or believe this to gain whatever value the articulation has. The only logical reason to add this "divine and heavenly language" element is to elevate his ministry. It doesn't add to his argument, except to create a new argument - a self-validating one. Which is no argument at all.

I sat in one Lord's Table with brother Lee in Anaheim. During prophesying, a sister - who was brilliant, educated and articulate - wove together a great narrative. She said (paraphrased from memory), all anthropologists know that when studying an ancient people, their language is what illumines their nature as a people. She went on to say that in generations from now, when archeologists study the Lord's Recovery, they will encounter such a rich language. And from this language they will uncover a mystical or spiritual people.

Witness Lee was visibly moved by her speaking and said something about the pride a father must have (directing it at her father who was a leading one in So. Cal). Honestly, it really was a well crafted speaking.

There is something amiss when a Word-based faith finds a separate pride in its own language which are "proxies" for what the Word itself says.

I don't take umbrage at using "coined terms" especially when they are coined in an attempt to better capture nuanced biblical truths than existing articulations. But a pride in that - indeed, a declaration that the terms are "heavenly," is dangerous territory.

Thoughts?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. Hey Unto, perhaps this will get us out of the last discussion....but embroiled in a new one! Sorry, frying pans and fire have such an allure...