The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES

[UntoHim]

The ‘Lonely Triune God’—LSM’s Oxymoron
Nigel Tomes

“Not Good for God to be Alone”—W. Lee
Living Stream Ministry simultaneously maintains two contradictory tenets: [1] They maintain that God was “lonely,” “alone,” and “incomplete,” like a “single, lonely bachelor,” so He created mankind to be His counterpart. [2] They assert that God is triune, that the Three ‘Persons’ of the triune God are distinct, but never separate, and that the Three coexist, coinhere, and are inseparable. Hence, Jesus declared, “I am not alone…the Father is with Me” (John 16:32). However, this means that none of the Trinity’s three ‘Persons’ is ever alone or lonely. This is LSM’s oxymoron—the ‘lonely triune God’.

This article examines the “lonely God” thesis offered by Witness Lee & Living Stream Ministry (LSM). We analyze their related teachings regarding the triune God. The inherent inconsistencies between these two strands are noted. Finally LSM’s portrayal is contrasted with perichoresis—the “dance of God”—emphasized by Bible expositors and theologians. These two depictions stand in stark contrast.

“God was Alone…He was Lonely”—W. Lee
What motivated God to create the human race? This question has been posed for centuries. Various answers have been offered. Witness Lee’s answer is simple—God was alone and lonely, like a ‘single, bachelor.’ He says,0 “The God revealed in Genesis 1:1 is a ‘bachelor’ God,” and1 “In eternity God was alone; we may even say that He was lonely. His desire for love could not be fulfilled by angels. Therefore, God created man according to His own being. God is loving, and He wants man to love Him.” Following mankind’s creation, God remained a “lonely bachelor,” W. Lee alleges saying,2 “God was courting His people, seeking a people to love Him. From the creation of the world until the time of Exodus 20, God was alone. In a sense, He was lonely, a ‘bachelor.’ …God lovingly courted His people. He had been lonely for a long time, and now He was seeking their love.” Gene Edwards shares Witness Lee’s ‘lonely God’ thesis. In his book, The Divine Romance, Edwards (who interacted with the “Lord’s Recovery” in the early years) portrays God telling Adam, “As I am alone, so are you alone.”3

“Not Good for God to be Alone”—W. Lee
What is the basis for this assertion? W. Lee appeals to the creation of Eve (Gen. 2). Demonstrating his penchant for finding ‘deeper, hidden meanings’ in Scripture, W. Lee says,4
“Without man, God would feel lonely and would not be satisfied. After creating the first man, Adam, God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone’ (Gen. 2:18). In saying this, God was also referring to Himself. In other words, it is not good for God to be alone, to be without man. Therefore, He created man so that man could be His counterpart.”
On another occasion he says:5
“Before God had secured the proper man, He was alone. It was not good for God to be alone. Although God is absolutely and eternally perfect, He is not complete. To say that God is imperfect is to speak blasphemy. Our God is eternally perfect. Nevertheless, without the church He is incomplete...Therefore, when God said that it was not good for Adam to be alone, it meant that God Himself was incomplete and that it was not good for Him to be alone. Adam's need for a wife typifies & portrays God's need to have a complement. If we see this...Genesis 2 will be clear.”
Yet again, in another context, W. Lee asserts,6 “Just as it was not good for Adam to be alone, single, so it is not good for God to be alone, to be a ‘bachelor’.”

Witness Lee focuses on God’s statement, “it was not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper...” (Gen. 2:18, RcV). He draws several striking deductions from this:7
1. God was lonely; He “was alone.” “When God said that it was not good for Adam to be alone, it meant...it was not good for Him to be alone;” “God was…referring to Himself,” W. Lee writes.
2. God was “incomplete.” “Before God had secured the proper man...He is not complete...without the church He is incomplete,” W. Lee states; God was “eternally perfect,” yet “incomplete.”
3. God had an unmet need. “Adam's need...portrays God's need” W. Lee asserts; “Adam's need for a wife typifies and portrays God's need to have a complement,” he says. Like Adam, God was a ‘lonely, single bachelor,’ whose “desire for love could not be fulfilled by angels,” W. Lee alleges.
“God is no longer Alone”—W. Lee
Similarly, W. Lee asserts that Christ is “incomplete” without the Church,7 and that, as a result of Christ’s death, “God is no longer alone.”9 At the end of the Bible,10 “God is no longer single, no longer a bachelor.” Again God (or Christ) is depicted as “lonely, alone, and incomplete” without the church.

God was lonely, incomplete, with unmet needs
Let us consider W. Lee’s three deductions outlined in the three points above. Each of these bold assertions is striking; taken together they are shocking! We ask: are they logical? Is this depiction based on sound hermeneutic principles? Is it consistent with orthodox views about the Triune God?
“Back Projection”—making God in Man’s own Image?
1. Witness Lee’s bold assertions are based on “types.” “Man is a type of God,” he says,11 and “Man typifies God as the real, universal husband who is seeking a wife for Himself.” Witness Lee then draws the deductions listed above. This is an unorthodox application of typology; it amounts to “back projection”—the fact that God perceives a deficiency in Adam is projected back upon God who (allegedly) has the same deficiency! So when God said, ‘It’s not good for the man to be alone’ (Gen. 2:18), W. Lee asserts that,12 “God was also referring to Himself. In other words, it is not good for God to be alone, to be without man.” Hence, since Adam is “alone, incomplete, with unmet needs,” W. Lee deduces this is also true of God. Stated succinctly, Scripture says God created man in His own image (Gen. 1:27); yet, in W. Lee’s exposition, this relationship is applied perversely —using “back projection”—God is being made in man’s own image!
2. Moreover casual observation suggests W. Lee’s logic is specious. Older believers often tell young, single brothers, “Perhaps you need to get married.” Does that imply the speaker is also unmarried and needs a spouse? Probably not! Many parents exhort their children, “You need to study more.” Does this imply the parents have the same need? A physician may tell his/her obese patient, “You need to join a weight-loss program.” Does the physician also need to join? It is certainly not self-evident that perceiving a need in others implies one has the same need.
3. Plus, every Old Testament ‘type’ is limited in its scope. Jonah typified Christ by spending three days in the fish’s belly (Matt. 12:40); Jonah did not foreshadow Christ when he disobeyed God’s call. Likewise Adam portrayal of Christ is limited; he typifies Christ in certain respects (Rom. 5:14). We cannot simply assume a priori that God’s condition mirrors Adam’s state. To say that God desires (“wants, needs?”) to be expressed (“glorified”) through Adam’s race is qualitatively different from asserting “Adam's need...typifies and portrays God's need...” The latter statement reduces God to a merely human level, and it makes God in man’s own image.

Hermeneutic Principles Violated
W. Lee claimed to have discovered “deeper, intrinsic significances” in Scripture, not evident to most Bible scholars.13 Yet his novel interpretation violates some basic principles of Bible interpretation.
1. It contradicts the Clarity [“Perspicuity”] of Scripture. This key principle recovered by the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc) states that,14 “Scripture is comprehensible enough so that, with the aid of the Holy Spirit and by using a sound hermeneutic that allows Scripture to interpret itself, anyone who desires to do so can understand God's message.” This principle has direct implications regarding15 “how Scripture should be interpreted. Is the Bible to be taken literally, within the boundaries of its own context? Or is there a deeper meaning, a non-literal (allegorical) sense intended for the spiritually elite? Perspicuity [Clarity] of Scripture maintains that the Bible is divine literature that is to be interpreted literally in its historical setting, with attention given to the ordinary rules of language. The main sense is the plain sense, the meaning that the Author [God via Scripture’s writers] intended to convey.” Witness Lee’s “deeper,” non-literal interpretation contradicts this principle, since his “lonely God” thesis is an inference not derived from the Bible’s clear words; it a (supposed) inference is derived from “reading between the lines” of Scripture.
2. It violates the Literal Sense: The plain meaning of the text—“it was not good for the man to be alone...” (Gen. 2:18)—is simply that Adam needed a counterpart, a companion. The “golden rule of interpretation” says,16 “When the plain sense of the scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” Applying this principle negates LSM’s inference based on “back projection,” that “in saying this, God was also referring to Himself,” and therefore Adam’s need necessarily implies that God Himself was “lonely, incomplete, with unmet needs.” The Bible never makes these latter statements; they are Witness Lee’s unsubstantiated inferences.
3. It ignores the Principle of Divine Accommodation. In presenting their claims LSM ought to recognize that Scripture’s depictions of God are accommodated to the human mind so we can comprehend it. On occasion the Bible describes God in terms of human features, emotions or needs. However, this is God condescending to describe Himself in terms that we, humans, can understand. Hence expositors caution that,17 “an understanding of this fact should cause the interpreter to avoid excessively literal exegesis when he finds God...resembling a man, who can be loving, hating, jealous, angry, glad, or filled with regret.” We ask: In proposing their “lonely God,” thesis hasn’t LSM engaged in an “excessively literal exegesis”?
LSM’s ‘Lonely God’ contradicts Orthodox Views of the Trinity
LSM’s “lonely God” thesis makes no mention of the Triune God. This omission is significant. When W. Lee talks about God being “lonely,” he does not refer to the “triune God.” This portrayal implicitly views “God” as a uni-person God; it is effectively Unitarian. Upon examination it becomes evident that LSM’s ‘lonely God’ contradicts orthodox Christian views of the triune God.
1. How can “One God in three Persons” be “lonely”?
Is LSM’s “lonely God” consistent with the orthodox view of the Trinity? W. Lee asserts that,18 “Before God had secured the proper man, He was alone. It was not good for God to be alone.” Yet orthodox Christians maintain that God is triune—One God in three Persons. In what sense then was God “alone,” before mankind’s creation? The dictionary defines “alone” as: “separate… isolated from others.” But God’s statement, “Let Us make man in Our image...” (Gen. 1:26, RcV) recognizes the plurality of God and contradicts LSM’s notion that “God was alone.”
Moreover Scripture describes an intimate relationship within the Trinity, between the Father and the Son. Even from eternity, the Father loved the Son; Jesus told the Father, “You loved Me before the world’s foundation” (John 17:24). And the Father declared, “This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I have found My delight” (Matt. 3:17; 17:5, RcV). Yet W. Lee suggests God had an unfulfilled desire for love; He had no one to love Him; he asserts19 “In eternity God was alone …He was lonely. His desire for love could not be fulfilled by angels. Therefore, God created man according to His own being.” We agree that God’s “desire for love could not be fulfilled by angels.” Yet, John 17:24 testifies there was love within the Trinity; wasn’t that love adequate? Given the love between the Father and the Son, did God still have an unfulfilled need to be loved? Was God really a “lonely bachelor”? Moreover in eternity, divine fellowship (communion, community) existed among the Trinity (2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Jn. 1:3). In what sense then was God, the Triune God, “lonely”?
“Lonely” is defined as “solitary, without company” and “destitute of friendly companionship.” This is the antithesis of God being triune and of the fellowship among the Three of the Trinity from eternity. Surely none of the “Persons” of the triune God was ever solitary, without company or destitute of companionship. A ‘lonely, triune God’ is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
2. How can the mutually indwelling, coinhering, three of the Godhead be “lonely”?
W. Lee frequently addressed the topic of the Trinity. He said,20 “The Scriptures tell us clearly and definitely that God is only one (1 Cor. 8:4; Isa. 45:5; Psa. 86:10), yet He is also three—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. He is the Triune God.” Plus W. Lee agrees that the three Persons of the Triune God coexist, coinhere and mutually indwell one another. He says,21 “The relationship among the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not only that They simultaneously coexist but also that They mutually indwell one another. The Father exists in the Son and the Spirit; the Son exists in the Father and the Spirit; and the Spirit exists in the Father and the Son. This mutual indwelling among the Three of the Godhead is called coinherence.” He also says,22 “Wherever one of the Godhead is, the other two are as well, because the three of the Godhead not only coexist but also coinhere.” Since, “Wherever one of the Godhead is, the other two are as well,” we ask, how could any one of the Three be “alone” or “lonely”? Isn’t LSM’s ‘lonely, triune God’ an oxymoron?
3. Jesus said, “I am not alone…the Father is with Me.” (Jn. 16:32; cf. 8:16)
Prior to His death, Jesus told the disciples “you will be scattered…and will leave Me alone; yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me.” (Jn. 16:32, RcV., cf. Jn. 8:16) Here the Son of God declares emphatically, “I am not alone…the Father is with Me.” W. Lee notes that this implies,23 “The Father can never be separated from the Son, and the Son can never be separated from the Father.” How can this statement be reconciled with LSM’s depiction of a “lonely God”? Surely Jesus’ statement implies the Father and the Son are never alone, since they are inseparable. Given this relationship, in what sense was God “alone”?
W. Lee ignores the Trinity’s plural aspect when he asserts that God was lonely. In this context he adopts a Unitarian, uni-person view of the God; the three-fold aspect of the Trinity has been “collapsed” into the one-fold aspect.24 W. Lee seems to adopt a heterodox Unitarian position, for example, when he says,25 “The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person.” His statement, “The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are…one person,” suggests God is uni-personal. But most of the time W. Lee is more orthodox.
Viewed differently, we could say that when asserting “God was alone…He was lonely,” W. Lee ignores the “internal relationships” within the Trinity and focuses exclusively on the “external relationship” between the Triune God and mankind. However, such a dichotomy between the Triune God’s “internal and external” relationships is artificial and invalid. In Scripture, “external,” humanity is invited (via God’s salvation) to participate in the “internal” fellowship of the Triune God (1 Jn. 1:3). Witness Lee’s depiction of the “lonely God” contradicts Scripture’s testimony (e.g. “I am not alone…the Father is with Me.” Jn. 16:32). It is also contradicts orthodox Christian tenets about the Trinity. Christian apologist G. K. Chesterton said “God Himself is a Society;” he asserts that the notion of a ‘lonely God’ belongs to Islam,26 not to the Christian faith27

Evangelical Theologians reject LSM’s ‘Lonely God’ thesis
“God...is not a lonely God!” —Professor J. Rodman Williams
Contemporary theologians have addressed the issue of the ‘lonely God’ and they roundly reject this notion. Dr. J. Rodman Williams, Theology Professor at Regent University, Virginia, USA states that,28 “since God is a Trinity of persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—...He abides in eternal fellowship with one another. Though God is God alone, He is not a lonely God!”
“God never has been lonely or alone…nor can he ever be”—Prof. Bruce A. Ware

Dr. Bruce A. Ware is past President of the Evangelical Theological Society and currently Professor of Christian Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Professor Ware writes,29 “God is never ‘alone.’ He never experiences, whether with or without the world he has made, a sense of individual isolation and ‘loneliness.’ He never has been lonely or alone, in this sense, nor can he ever be, even in principle. The one God is Three! He is by very nature both a unity of Being while also existing eternally as a society of Persons…They are in need of nothing but each other throughout all eternity.” This one statement refutes the twin notions proffered by LSM that God was lonely & alone, and that He had a lack or need which motivated His creation of the human race. In Tony Campolo’s words, “If the triune God is true, God never existed in isolation; instead God has always been in relationship.”30

“It is not God for God to be alone”—Prof. Douglas Groothuis
Professor Douglas Groothuis of Denver Seminary maintains that since the Trinity is “intrinsically relational,” the concept that God was ‘alone’ is inconsistent with the Bible’s view of God. As he puts31 it—‘It is not God for God to be alone,’ meaning, ‘It is not the Bible’s view of God, that God was alone.’ Taken in context, Professor Groothuis writes,32 “The doctrine of the Trinity highlights…that God is intrinsically relational. Chesterton’s quip is not glib: ‘It is not God for God to be alone.’ God did not need to spring humans into existence in order to experience communication and have a relationship, bad Christian teaching to the contrary. Rather, in creating personal beings for living relationships, God was expressing something vital about his own nature.” Professor Groothuis states that mankind’s creation was not motivated by God’s need for relationship; he labels that notion as “bad Christian teaching.” Rather, Dr. Groothuis asserts that humans’ capacity for relationship reflects the fact that this attribute already existed and was experienced among the Trinity. These respected, evangelical theologians roundly reject LSM’s notion of a ‘lonely God,’ as inconsistent with orthodox Christian tenets regarding the Trinity.

The “Divine Romance” of the Triune God & His Elect
When W. Lee depicts God as “lonely,” he doesn’t refer to the “triune God.” Conversely when he talks about the “divine romance” of the Triune God with His elect, the triune God is not described as “lonely.” For e.g., W. Lee says “The Bible reveals…a divine romance between God and His elect…a universal couple. The male of this couple is God Himself, and the female is God's redeemed people. …The Husband is triune and the wife is tripartite, and thus they match each other...”33 Note that, in this context, there is no mention of the triune God being ‘lonely.’ Was W. Lee, perhaps, aware of the inherent contradiction of maintaining that God was simultaneously triune and also “lonely”?

W. Lee is adamant that the Three of the Trinity are distinct, but not separate. He asserts that,34 “It is permissible to use the word distinct in reference to the three of the Trinity, but it is altogether inaccurate to use the word separate.” Again he says,35 “Although the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct, They cannot be separate. The Three of the Godhead are inseparable.” Plus W. Lee says,36 “The Son never did anything apart from the Father (John 5:19). Therefore, when He became something, He did that with the Father. This is a crucial point, and it is an intrinsic part of the meaning of Triune. The Son...told us that the Father never left Him alone (John 8:29; 16:32). All the time the Father was with the Son...You cannot separate the Son from the Father at all.”

We note, again, the Dictionary defines “alone” as, “separate, apart, or isolated from others.” W. Lee insists that Three of the Trinity are distinct, but not separate; they are inseparable. He also points out (correctly) that “The Son...told us that the Father never left Him alone (Jn. 8:29; 16:32).” But these statements about the triune God contradict his notion that God was “alone.” Plus “lonely” is defined as “characterized by...a depressing feeling of being alone,” “solitary, without company” or “destitute of friendly companionship.” Since none of the Three of the Trinity were ever “alone,” it follows that none was ever “lonely.” Plus the inseparability (Jn. 8:29; 16:32) and fellowship of the Trinity (1 Jn. 1:3; 2 Cor. 13:14) ensures that none ever lacked company or companionship. We conclude that W. Lee’s own teachings about the triune God contradict his notion of the “lonely God.” LSM is in the hopelessly conflicted position of simultaneously maintaining (on the one hand) that God created mankind because He was “lonely and alone,” and (on the other) that this God is triune.37 Do other Christian expositors and theologians propound a more consistent position on these issues?

Christianity’s Alternative: Perichoresis—the “Dance of God”
Witness Lee condemned the whole of Christianity for being “stranded on the sands of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology.”38 Despite his casual dismissal, in recent years Christianity has revived an innovative approach to the Trinity, which offers an attractive alternative to LSM’s view. It centers on the concept of perichoreses or what is popularly termed, “the dance of God.”

Dr. Randall E. Otto explains that,39 “Perichoresis is a theological term which describes the necessary being-in-one-another…of the 3 divine Persons of the Trinity because of the single divine essence, the eternal procession of the Son from the Father and of the Spirit from the Father and (through) the Son, and the fact that the 3 Persons are distinguished solely by the relations of opposition between them. This term was popularized in the 8th century by John of Damascus.” Less technically, Peter Leithart of New Saint Andrews College, ID., says,40 “Perichoresis [is] a doctrinal term…[which] means to contain or penetrate, and refers to the unity of the persons of the Trinity being so complete that they interpenetrate one another. Another Greek word which is etymologically related is perichoreuein, meaning ‘to dance around,’ and is the probable source of the image of the Trinitarian community in a divine dance.” Best-selling author, Timothy Keller of Redeemer Church, NYC, describes it like this: in the Trinity,41 “Each of the divine persons centers upon the others. None demands that the others revolve around him. Each voluntarily circles the other two, pouring love, delight, and adoration into them. Each person of the Trinity loves, adores, defers to, and rejoices in the others. That creates a dynamic, pulsating dance of joy and love. The early leaders of the Greek church had a word for this—perichoresis. Notice our word ‘choreography’ within it. It means literally to ‘dance or flow around’.”

LSM’s “lonely God” over-emphasizes the oneness of the Triune God, suggesting the Three are “one Person.”42 In contrast, the concept of perichoresis is employed by theologians who “emphasize the threeness…of the Trinity, focusing on 3 divine individuals held together by a single divine essence, in which they participate…”43 says Dr. Oliver D. Crisp of the University of Bristol, UK. In this paradigm the three of the Triune God are viewed as relational, forming a44 “divine community, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, [which] is complete and exists in exceeding love, fellowship and joy. The divine persons eternally love one another, rejoice in one another, serve one another, affirm one another in perfect, unbroken fellowship whose excellence so far exceeds the categories of human relationship that it is beyond our [ability] even to imagine.” This description is consistent with Jesus’ declaration, “Father …You loved Me before the world’s foundation” (John 17:24) and Scripture’s teaching about the divine fellowship (2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Jn. 1:3). It follows from this that, if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit form a “divine community…[which] is complete and exists in exceeding love, fellowship and joy,” then the Trinity was never “alone, or lonely.” America’s greatest theologian, Jonathan Edwards45 (1703 –58) concluded that,46 “God is infinitely happy. Within God is a community of persons pouring glorifying, joyful love into one another.” God is not, and never has been, lonely or alone.

Why Did God create Mankind?
Why did God create mankind? Witness Lee answers by asserting that God was lonely and alone. He writes,47 “God created man with the purpose of having a counterpart…In eternity God was alone; we may even say that He was lonely. His desire for love could not be fulfilled by angels. Therefore, God created man according to His own being. God is loving, and He wants man to love Him.” W. Lee tries to substantiate this notion based on a “deeper, intrinsic significance” hidden in Scripture.’ He asserts that when48 “God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone’ (Gen. 2:18)…God was also referring to Himself. In other words, it is not good for God to be alone.” But the Bible never says this, nor does it imply this. LSM’s concept of a lonely God, implicitly adopts a Unitarian view of a uni-person God. A lonely God is consistent with Islam; however it contradicts orthodox Christian tenets about the Triune God, tenets which W. Lee also propounds. Hence, LSM’s ‘lonely Triune God’ is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Christian theologians rightly reject this notion.

How do other expositors answer this question? Historian George Marsden of the University of Notre Dame, IN, summarizes Jonathan Edward’s view, saying,49 “The ultimate reason that God creates, says Edwards, is not to remedy some lack in God, but to extend that perfect internal communication [fellowship] of the triune God…” Mankind’s creation was motivated not by any lack or unmet need in God, but to share in the rich surplus, the super-abundance of the fellowship that has been enjoyed eternally within the divine Trinity. Or, as best-selling Christian author, Timothy Keller of Redeemer Church, NYC, says,50 “God did not create us to get the cosmic, infinite joy of love and glorification [He already has that], but to share it. We were made to join in the dance. If we center our lives on Him… we will enter the dance and share in the joy and love He lives in.” Personally I find this answer more appealing and more consistent with Scripture than LSM’s depiction of the “lonely God,” who in eternity was (in some sense) “alone” with unmet needs, whose51 “desire for love could not be fulfilled by angels. Therefore, [He] God created man…” Moreover, this alternative has the virtue of internal consistency between God’s motive for creating mankind and the Triune God’s own constitution; such consistency is absent from LSM’s hopelessly conflicted notion of a ‘lonely triune God.’

Nigel Tomes,
Toronto, CANADA,
September, 2013.

Notes: As always the views expressed here are those of the author alone. They should not be attributed to the believers, elders or churches with whom he is associated. Thanks are extended to those who commented on earlier drafts.
0. W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Corinthians, Chapter 21, Section 3. In context, W. Lee says, “The God revealed in Genesis 1:1 is a ‘bachelor’ God…The 66 books of the Bible reveal the process through which the ‘single’ God has passed.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Cor., Chapter 21, Section 3] Note that here God is described as both “a bachelor” and “single.”
1. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 55, Section 1, emphasis added
2. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 53, Section 1, emphasis added. W. Lee argues that, at Mount Sinai, God was courting Israel. For our present purposes the exact timeframe—“From the creation of the world until the time of Exodus 20” —is irrelevant. Out point is LSM’s characterization of God as “lonely and alone.” In the present quote, W. Lee says, “God was alone. In a sense, He was lonely, a ‘bachelor’.”
3. The quote is from Gene Edwards, The Divine Romance, (Tyndale House Publishers) p. 11. Gene Edwards also describes the “mutual loneliness, the shared sadness” of God and Adam, “that they were alone.” (p. 8) Edwards portrays Adam telling God, “I am, as you are, Alone!” (p. 9). The shared perspective of Gene Edwards’ Divine Romance and W. Lee’s writings (quoted above) should not surprise long-time Local Church members. W. Lee complained publicly, on more than one occasion, that “someone” had attended his US conferences in the early years, “stolen his ideas” and then published them under his own name.
4. W. Lee, Christ Being the Burden of the Gospel, Chapter 8, Section 2, emphasis added
5. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 17, Section 2 & also reproduced in Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. #205-220), Chapter 10, Section 1, emphasis added. The last sentence also appears in LSM’s Recovery version Bible footnotes in the form of: “Adam's need for a wife typifies and portrays God's need, in His economy, to have a complement.” [Gen. 2:18, note 1, RcV] Along the same lines, elsewhere W. Lee says, “Adam...was a lonely man. Hence, the Bible says that ‘it is not good that the man should be alone’ (Gen. 2:18). This signifies that it is not good for God to be alone. He does not want to dwell alone.” [W. Lee, God's Way in Life, Chap. 1, Sect. 2, emphasis add]
6. W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Corinthians, Chapter 21, Section 2 (emphasis added). In context, W. Lee says, “Just as it was not good for Adam to be alone, single, so it is not good for God to be alone, to be a ‘bachelor.’ Without His chosen people as His bride, God is ‘single.’ He is only half of the universal couple. I realize that this thought is frightening to the doctrinal or theological mind. When they hear this, some may say, ‘Are you teaching that God in Himself is not complete? How can you compare God to a bachelor or to one half of a melon? This is heresy! No one should follow such a false teaching! God is almighty, perfect, and complete. As the great One, the King, the Ruler in the heavens, He is the object of worship. We have been created by Him, and we must prostrate ourselves before Him in worship.’ Of course, God in Himself is complete. However, many who use the truth of God's completeness to argue against the revelation in the Bible concerning the universal couple see only the outward appearance of the Word. They know only the feathers and the skin. If we grasp the inward reality of the Word, we shall realize that God will never be satisfied with mere outward worship from His creatures. We shall know that, deep in His heart, He wants a bride.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Corinthians, Chapter 21, Section 2] Note that W. Lee seeks to pre-empt anticipated criticism of his assertions.
7. The quoted statements are taken from the paragraph reproduced above. Source: W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 17, Section 2 & also reproduced in Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. #205-220), Chapter 10, Section 1, emphasis added
8. “Without the church Christ is incomplete. According to God's thought, it was not good for Adam to be alone, and it is not good for Christ to be without the church (Gen. 2:18-24; Eph. 5:23-32). Adam needed Eve, and Christ needs the church.” [W. Lee, Crucial Truths in the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 6, Chapter 1, Section 5, emphasis added.] Watchman Nee also addresses this situation. However, Watchman Nee’s utterance is distinctly more circumspect. He says, “In God's view, Christ seems to be incomplete without us, as though it was not good for Christ to live alone, and as though He would still be lacking if He did not have the sinners. God's purpose in saving us is not just for us but also for Christ. God wants Christ to be satisfied, pleased, and completed. Therefore, He gives us to Christ. Let us see that we are called not just for our own blessings, but also to satisfy Christ's heart. Our responsibility is not to fail God. To whatever extent we satisfy Christ is the same extent God has not failed Christ.” [W. Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 8: The Present Testimony (1), Chapter 29, Section 1] Notice W. Nee’s abundant use of qualifying phrases: it “seems” & “as though.” The present article is limited in scope—it considers only LSM’s published writings of Witness Lee. Examination of Watchman Nee’s writings is deferred to another occasion.
9. W. Lee says: “The result of Adam's sleep…was that he gained Eve as his counterpart…This signifies that the result of Christ's death…was that He obtained the church ...Henceforth, God is no longer alone, for Christ has gained a counterpart to match Him.” [W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. #205-220), Chap. 10, Sect. 3, emphasis added]
10. W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Cor., Chapter 21, Section 3. In the context of Rev. 22, W. Lee says, “Spirit has a counterpart, an increase, an addition. This means that the Spirit has something to match Him. God is no longer single, no longer a bachelor, for He has a bride to match Him. For this reason, the consummate revelation in the Bible is that of the all-inclusive Spirit with the bride.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Cor., Chapter 21, Section 3 (emphasis added)]
11. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chap. 17, Sect. 2 & also Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. #205-220), Chap. 10, Sect. 1
12. W. Lee, Christ Being the Burden of the Gospel, Chapter 8, Section 2
13. As a further illustration of W. Lee’s penchant for finding “deeper, hidden, intrinsic significance” in Scripture, consider the following statements regarding Jesus’ washing his disciples’ feet in John 13: “At the Lord's table [some Christians] wash one another's feet to express their love for one another. …But this matter of foot-washing signifies something more important. As we have seen, everything mentioned in this Gospel [John] is a sign that indicates something deeper and spiritual. Therefore, foot-washing is also a sign signifying something deeper and spiritual. But it is rather difficult to discover the spiritual significance of this sign. What is its deeper, spiritual significance?” [W. Lee, Life-Study of John, Chapter 27, Section 1 (emphasis added)] W. Lee also claimed to have seen the intrinsic significances which have been hidden for 2,000 years; he says “Throughout church history over the last 2,000 years…Few have entered deeply into their intrinsic significances. It was not until the time when the Lord raised up the recovery in China…that the intrinsic significances of these matters were made known to us one by one.” [W. Lee, Governing & Controlling Vision in the Bible, Chapter 2, Section 1 (emphasis added)] He depreciates the teachings of Christianity as “shallow,” compared to his “deeper” insights, saying “The shallow teaching of Christianity tells us things mostly according to the black and white. But we have realized more by our further and deeper study. I have been studying this Book further and further for over 69 years. Gradually my study of the Bible has been getting deeper & deeper and higher & higher.” [W. Lee, Practical Way to Live a Life According to the High Peak of the Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures, Chapter 3, Section 2 (emphasis added)] Concerning the Old Testament, W. Lee, alleged that his teaching gave the “deeper, intrinsic significance;” for e.g. he says, “In studying…the Old Testament, we need the full scope of…God's eternal economy… This will render us…the deeper, intrinsic significance of God's purpose in presenting to us the histories and giving us the prophecies of the Old Testament.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Joshua, Judges & Ruth, Chapter 1, Section 1]
14. G. Breshears, The Perspicuity of Scripture, p. 3. Professor Breshears points out that Luther & Calvin “were objecting to any allegorical or ‘spiritual’ interpretation of Scripture that was not based on the plain, literal sense of the words placed within their own literary and historical context.” [G. Breshears, The Perspicuity of Scripture, p. 30, http://www.westernseminary.edu/paper...ty.doc‎] The important Reformation principle of the Clarity [“Perspicuity”] of Scripture, is the view “that the Bible can be understood by people through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and that people need to search the Scripture and judge for themselves what it means.” [Larry D. Pettegrew, The Perspicuity of Scripture, The Master's Seminary, 2004.] The following quotes explain the significance of this principle: Prof. F. F. Bruce emphasizes the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding each believer. Bruce says, “The Holy Spirit is also the supreme Interpreter of the Scriptures, doing for us to-day as we read them what Christ did for the disciples on the road to Emmaus when He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” [F. F. Bruce, “What Do We Mean By Biblical Inspiration?” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, vol. 78 (1946): p. 128] Princeton’s Charles Hodge wrote, the Perspicuity [Clarity] of Scripture “means that in accordance with the priesthood of the believer, every Christian has the right…to read and interpret it for himself, so that his faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the [Roman Catholic] Church.” [Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology vol. 1:183.] Thus the Reformation replaced the Church’s infallible statements allegorizing Scripture with the individual’s right to read and interpret Scripture for him/ herself based on its literal sense. Graeme Goldsworthy explains that “The Reformers recovered the authority of the Bible…[and] a biblical doctrine of Scripture. Protestant interpretation… was based upon the concept of the perspicuous (clear & self-interpreting) nature of the Bible…removing an authority for interpretation from outside the Bible—the infallible church.” [Graeme Goldsworthy, Is the Old Testament for Christians?]
15. G. Breshears, The Perspicuity of Scripture, pp. 8-9. http://www.westernseminary.edu/paper...erspicuity.doc
16. See for e.g. Russell Penney, Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, p. 67
17. BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS, Hermeneutics 3-09, p. 7 http://makarios-online.org/notes/pdf...cs%203-09.pdf] On this topic, Kenton L. Sparks writes, "Accommodation is God’s adoption in inscripturation of the human audience’s finite and fallen perspective. Its underlying conceptual assumption is that in many cases God does not correct our mistaken human viewpoints but merely assumes them in order to communicate with us." [Kenton L. Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words, An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship, pp. 230-31]
18. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chap. 17, Section 2
19. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 55, Section 1, emphasis added
20. W. Lee, Crucial Points of the Major Items of the Lord's Recovery, Chapter 1, Section 3
21. W. Lee, Crucial Points of the Major Items of the Lord's Recovery, Chapter 1, Section 3
22. W. Lee, All-inclusive Indwelling Spirit, Chapter 6, Section 2
23. W. Lee, Jn. 8:16, note 1, RcV.
24. We note that W. Lee tends to avoid the term “person” when talking about the Triune God. Instead of using the term “Person” (e.g. “Three Persons”) he often talks about the “Three” of the Triune God. On this issue, Karen Kilby, Assoc. Prof. of Systematic Theology at the Univ. of Nottingham, UK writes, “All Christian theologians who want to consider themselves orthodox are committed to the proposition that God is three “persons.” And all modern theologians seem to agree that the meaning of person in the context of the Trinity is not simply identical with our current understanding of the word. But as to just how different the meaning is, and in what way, there is not such unanimity.” [Karen Kilby, ‘Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity,’ New Blackfriars, vol. 81 (2000)]
25. The statement "The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person." Is taken from W. Lee, The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man, p. 48 (emphasis added) and quoted in “An Open Letter from 70 evangelical Christian scholars to the leadership of the “local churches” and Living Stream Ministry” www.open-letter.org] The 70 scholars quote this published statement by W. Lee due to its (apparent) conflict with orthodox statements concerning the Trinity/triune God. Note that elsewhere W. Lee counsels against using the term “person,” yet here he employs it himself! For e.g. he says, “As much as possible, we should avoid words such as person, substance, essence, subsistence, and hypostasis.” [W. Lee, Young People's Training, Chapter 7, Section 2, emphasis added]
26. Under the heading, “God Himself is a Society," the noted journalist and Christian apologist G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) wrote the following: "There is nothing in the least liberal or akin to reform in the substitution of pure monotheism for the Trinity. The complex God of the Athanasian Creed may be an enigma for the intellect; but He is far less likely to gather the mystery and cruelty of a Sultan than the lonely god of Omar or Mahomet. The god who is a mere awful unity is not only a king but an Eastern king. The heart of humanity, especially of European humanity, is certainly much more satisfied by the strange hints and symbols that gather round the Trinitarian idea, the image of a council at which mercy pleads as well as justice, the conception of a sort of liberty and variety existing even in the inmost chamber of the world. For Western religion has always felt keenly the idea "it is not well [good] for man to be alone." The social instinct asserted itself everywhere as when the Eastern idea of hermits was practically expelled by the Western idea of monks. So even asceticism became brotherly; and the Trappists were sociable even when they were silent. If this love of a living complexity be our test, it is certainly healthier to have the Trinitarian religion than the Unitarian. For to us Trinitarians (if I may say it with reverence)—to us God Himself is a society. It is indeed a fathomless mystery of theology, and even if I were theologian enough to deal with it directly, it would not be relevant to do so here. Suffice it to say here that this triple enigma is as comforting as wine and open as an English fireside; that this thing that bewilders the intellect utterly quiets the heart: but out of the desert, from the dry places and the dreadful suns, come the cruel children of the lonely God [i.e. radical Moslem adherents of Islam]; the real Unitarians who with scimitar [a sword with a curved blade, originating in the Middle East] in hand have laid waste the world. For it is not [good] well for God to be alone." G. K. Chesterton: Orthodoxy (emphasis added). Writing in the era before political correctness was fashionable, Chesterton talks about, “the lonely god of Omar or Mahomet” and refers to the jihadist-Moslem conquests of history with the words, “out of the desert…come the cruel children of the lonely God.” Chesterton’s inference is clear—a “lonely God” is characteristic of Islam and not of Christianity.
27. We could further examine the question: Does God have “unmet needs”? In order not to detract from our major focus, we simply note here (without taking a definitive position on this issue) that most theologians maintain that God is self-sufficient; He has no unmet needs. They hold that, “Because God is triune, he has eternally been personal and relational in his own being, in full independence from his creation. God has never had any unmet needs, ‘nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything…’ (Acts 17:25).” [ESV study Bible p. 2515, emphasis added. Elaborating, they hold that, “Personhood becomes real only within realized relationships, and the reality of relationship can only exist where one has something or someone that is not oneself to relate to; if, then, God had not been plural in himself he could not have been a personal, relational God till he had begun creating, and thus would have been dependent on creation for his own personhood, which is a notion as nonsensical as it is unscriptural. Between the persons of the Trinity, there has always existed total relational harmony and expression; God is, from this standpoint, a perfect society in himself. Apart from the plurality in the Trinity, either God’s eternal independence of the created order or his eternally relational personal existence would have to be denied.” [[ESV study Bible p. 2515] In the New International Reader’s NT, Acts 17:25 says, God “doesn’t need anything.” This matches the axiom of God’s independence, which maintains that “God never experiences need.” Contrast this with W. Lee’s repeated assertion that, “Adam's need for a wife typifies and portrays God's need to have a complement.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chap. 17, Sect. 2 & also Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. #205-220), Chap. 10, Sect. 1, emphasis added. LSM’s Recovery version Bible footnotes reproduce this statement in the form of: “Adam's need for a wife typifies and portrays God's need, in His economy, to have a complement.” Gen. 2:18, note 1, RcV] Plus W. Lee asserts that a reciprocal relationship of need exists between God and man. He alleges, “Man needs God, but God also needs man.” This also contradicts the axiom of God’s self-sufficiency. [Taken in context W. Lee says, “Man lacks everything if he lacks God, and God lacks satisfaction if He lacks man. If man does not have God, he is empty, and if God does not have man, He has no one to fill. Man needs God, but God also needs man.” W. Lee, Christ Being the Burden of the Gospel, Chapter 8, Section 2, emphasis added] All this is sufficient to show that W. Lee’s views differ significantly from the views expressed by some other theologians.
28. Dr. J. Rodman Williams, Theology Q&A, Christian Broadcasting Network, CBN.com, emphasis added. Dr. Williams functioned as the “resident theologian” answering the theological concerns of viewers.
29. Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son & Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles & Relevance, (2005) pp. 20-21
30. Tony Campolo, Communicating Like Jesus, p. 6
31. Professor Douglas Groothuis attributes this saying to the Christian apologist, G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) (see the following quote in the main text) . However, we are unable to locate this quote in Chesterton’s writings.
32. Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, p. 83
33. W. Lee, Life-Study of Joshua, Judges & Ruth, Chapter 9, Section 1, emphasis added. On another occasion W. Lee writes, “In Revelation 22:17 we have the forming of the universal couple. This couple is the mingling of the processed and dispensed Triune God with the regenerated and transformed tripartite man. This couple is the ultimate consummation of the divine romance revealed in the Bible. According to the entire Bible, there is a divine romance between God the Creator, the Redeemer, who is the male, and His redeemed people who are the female. This is a basic matter revealed in the Scriptures.” [W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. 172-188), Chapter 8, Section 2] Here also W. Lee talks of the “triune God” being in a “divine romance.” LSM’s Truth Lessons reproduce W. Lee’s expositions (almost) verbatim. E.g. “According to the entire Bible, there is a divine romance between God the Creator, the Redeemer, who is the male, and His redeemed people, who are the female... The ultimate consummation of the divine romance revealed in the Bible is a couple. This couple is the mingling of the processed and dispensed Triune God with the regenerated and transformed tripartite man. Revelation 22:17 reveals that this universal couple, as the ultimate consummation of the divine romance revealed in the Bible, is the mingling of the processed and dispensed Triune God with the regenerated and transformed tripartite man. The Bible begins with the marriage of Adam and Eve in Genesis and ends with the marriage of the Spirit and God's redeemed people in Revelation. This final marriage is the marriage of the processed, consummated, and dispensed Triune God as the Husband with His regenerated and transformed people as the bride. For eternity this universal couple will be the full manifestation of the Triune God expressed in all His glory. This is the conclusion of the New Testament and also of the entire Bible. At the conclusion of the Bible there is an eternal, universal couple expressing the Triune God for eternity.” [LSM, Truth Lessons, Level 4, Vol. 3, Chapter 10, Section 2]
34. W. Lee, Elders' Training, Book 1: The Ministry of the New Testament, Chapter 4, Section 1
35. W. Lee, Life-Study of Philippians, Chapter 45, Section 1
36. W. Lee, Elders' Training, Book 1: The Ministry of the New Testament, Chapter 4, Section 1
37. We note also that this contradiction within W. Lee’s teachings cannot be excused on the basis that a “stripped down” version of the Christian message is being presented for the purpose of preaching the gospel or instructing young people. Both these strands of W. Lee’s teachings are included in LSM’s “Conclusion of the New Testament” series which purports to present a comprehensive collection of W. Lee’s teachings. [See references in these notes]
38. W. Lee, Triune God's Revelation and His Move, Chapter 12, Section 4
39. Randall E. Otto, The Use and Abuse of Perichoresis in Recent Theology, Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 54, Issue 3 (Aug, 2001) pp 366-384. We note that Thomas F. Torrance, Professor of Christian Dogmatics at the University of Edinburgh, holds a view of perichoresis which is intimately connected with the homoousion, the shared substance of the divine persons, and governed by the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son and the Spirit. [Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1996), p. 97].
40. Peter J. Leithart, “The Dance of God, the Dance of Life” (online Internet article)
41. Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, p. 215.
42. Recall W. Lee’s statement, “The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person.” [W. Lee, The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man, p. 48 (emphasis added) and quoted in “An Open Letter from 70 evangelical Christian scholars to the leadership of the “local churches” and Living Stream Ministry” www.open-letter.org]
43. Oliver D. Crisp, Problems with Perichoresis, TYNDALE BULLETIN, 56.1 (2005) p. 136. Karen Kilby, Assoc. Prof. of Systematic Theology at the University of Nottingham, UK., points out that, “It is the divine perichoresis which makes the three [persons of the Trinity] one, and it is perichoresis which makes the Trinity a wonderful doctrine. There is among the three divine persons, it is said, a kind of mutual interpenetration which is not to be found amongst human persons, and it is because of this perfect interpenetration that the three persons are one God.” [Karen Kilby, ‘Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity,’ New Blackfriars 81 (2000) p. 435 quoted by Oliver D. Crisp Problems with Perichoresis, TYNDALE BULLETIN, 56.1 (2005) p. 135]
44. We note also that Dr. Oliver Crisp proposes what he terms, “The Weak Person-perichoresis Thesis, or WPT” which he defines as follows: “The persons of the Trinity share all their properties in a common divine essence apart from those properties that serve to individuate one of the persons of the Trinity, or express a relation between only two persons of the Trinity.” This may be called the Weak Person-perichoresis Thesis, or WPT. On this version of person-perichoresis the inter-penetration of each of the persons of the Trinity by the others is limited, rather than complete. But this, it seems to me, is a requirement for a doctrine of person-perichoresis that makes sense, otherwise the individuation of the persons of the Trinity is jeopardised. [Oliver D. Crisp, ...Perichoresis, TYNDALE BULLETIN, 56.1 (2005) p. 139] We don’t discuss this here; it is beyond the scope of this article.
45. George P. Fisher, An Unpublished Essay of Edwards on the Trinity, p. 77
46. Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, p. 217 Keller summarizing Edward’s view. Jonathan Edwards "is widely acknowledged to be America's most important and original philosophical theologian,” says the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Keller’s views are influenced by Edwards. Robinson W. Mitchell notes that “Timothy Keller acknowledges Edwards’ influence, and observes that the simple statement from John’s letter [i.e., ‘God is love,’] expresses an eternal truth about the nature and being of God. Only if God exists in community would the statement be true of him in an eternal sense. Love presupposes a subject and object, and thus ‘God is love,’ could not be true of a unitary God who had not created anything to love. Says Keller, ‘the very heart of reality, the meaning of life, the very essence of community is because of what has been happening in the interior life of God for all eternity. This is the …divine dance’.” [Timothy Keller, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” sermon preached at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, New York, Jan. 15, 2006 quoted by Robinson W. Mitchell, MISSION: A MARK OF THE CHURCH? TOWARD A MISSIONAL ECCLESIOLOGY, Thesis Reformed Theological Seminary, (Aug., 2008) pp. 44-45]
47. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 55, Section 1
48. W. Lee, Christ Being the Burden of the Gospel, Chapter 8, Section 2, emphasis added
49. George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (Yale Univ. Press, 2003) pp. 462-3 quoted by Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, p. 218
50. Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, p.219
51. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 55, Section 1. W. Lee’s statement (in context) reads: “In eternity God was alone; we may even say that He was lonely. His desire for love could not be fulfilled by angels. Therefore, God created man according to His own being. God is loving, and He wants man to love Him.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 55, Section 1 emphasis added to indicate portion quoted in the main text.]