Hiding religion in the church

[james73]

Seems the greatest trick Witness Lee ever pulled, (to paraphrase a favourite movie of mine), was convincing the world he did not exist. He convinced the Local Churches there was no "religion" around their operation, that they were the only ones who had broken free of the denominations, and he did this while all the time existing right in their midst, bold as the gold leaf embossing on a Recovery Version bible in the Truth Book Room.

I think that's probably obvious to most here, but for me it was a blinding revelation.... I had this moment of enlightenment reading a book called "Psychology & Religion", a great volume of around 30 published papers studying religion and man. (Published 1973, Penguin Education, Edited by L. B. Brown)
A quote from a paper by J.E. Dittes (1959) had me sitting up straight, thinking immediately of the trick Witness Lee had pulled.

"Religion, according to the man in the street or the woman in the pew, is almost always defined in terms of creeds, practices, codes or institutions. Yet most of those whom the people in the street revere as their teachers and saints have insisted that such things are as likely to be the marks of irreligion as of religion. Their position has been that creeds, codes and practices frequently become but scrambling, desperate grasping for a religions certainty and security which is not only illusory, but is rendered unnecessary by what, in the heritage of Paul and the Reformers, has been called justification by faith."

Lee's trick spun this around. He sold this "revelation" as, first, his own idea; and second, pretty much his own exclusive idea (ie other Christians are all wrong); but then he implemented exactly the opposite by constructing this mysterious system of revelation through which salvation was to be achieved.

Dittes continues:

"Ambiguity and uncertainty are terrifying, Paul and the Reformers seem to say, only if one somehow has the feeling that his salvation, integrity, self-image, is critically dependent on having clear answers to such questions. When one discovers within a faith relationship that this fundamental worth and value is basically assured, then all frantic efforts to grasp both at the supposed evidence and the supposed means of justification lose their desperate imperative."

To me, this is the Gospel. The Good News is, faith alone is all we need. We don't need answers. We don't need religion - most of us in this forum know this.

Where Lee's deceit lies is in convincing the people they need those answers. He creates ambiguity and mystery through this awkward language of God's Economy and the Centrality of God-man etc; and then provides a neat self-contained mythology which contains the answers, right down to the number of days they will suffer in darkness should they not be sufficiently "in Christ". That they are "babes", they are immature, they need a whole library of books, CDs, and educational training materials to assure their salvation. He's done this using the smokescreen that religion will not guarantee salvation, that his message is free of religion. And of course it's easy to believe. The one who gives you such good news, you are going to believe. It's like the salesman who tells you "the secrets other salesmen won't tell you about the extended warranty" - using that as a disingenuous hook to sell you all sorts of junk policies you never even knew you needed.

And the worst thing is, the Church in Skokie, Illinois, for example, doesn't even know it's subscribed to that policy. Ask any member "are we the church of the Living Stream Ministry?" and they'll just give you at best a pitying look, at worst they will be enraged at such a suggestion. Perhaps drug dealing is a better example than extended warranties...

Of course, there is a paradox - how to spread the Good News over billions of people and countless generations without a religion? It could be that what I call Lee's "deceit" is in fact just good practice, ensuring continuation of the Gospel. Perhaps it is necessary to make compromises, to make money to ensure a long-standing future, to control materials and teachings to ensure the message is not degraded and polluted over time.

But then, we have the example of Alcoholics Anonymous. Now THAT is an organization which genuinely operates as a "local church", which is sustainable, which genuinely preaches the "good news" (of sobriety) to an ever growing number of people. It does this without resorting to behaviour such as LSM's rather controlling tactics - and shows that it IS possible to have "religion without religion". Actually AA is a pretty good model for a church