The God who died

[aron]

I kind of wanted to create a contrast on this thread. First is a continuation of bearbear's idea of a "supernatural worldview" and "works of power of the Holy Spirit." Second is to contrast that with what we typically do, which is inject our own soulish reaction to the world we see, including imposing our cultural and personal agendas upon the Bible we read. Nee talked about this, as did Lee, but somehow they thought they were immune from this. Somehow God had given them a special dispensation. "Witness Lee: even when he's wrong he's right", we would say. I remember current Blended, RK, saying of Lee, that "No self" was involved in his ministry. I think this is actually the most pernicious self, because it has convinced us that it doesn't exist: it's fully concealed and thus free to wreak its havoc. Was there no self when Lee established the Daystar Motor Home company with son Timothy at the helm, then began to shake down the parishoners from his pulpit? No self involved when he appointed his son Philip to run LSM? Actually we took a lot from a fellow human and treated it as if it were from God. We created a "God who died", when the truth came out and the foundation of our spiritual worldview was revealed as made of sand. Lee's feet were made of clay, just like you and me. Surprise, surprise. So he tried to expose the Shanghai elders: "How did you feel" when the truth came out, but he really exposed his whole system.

The fact is that we are human, and we respond imperfectly to the perfect God. And that includes Mssrs Nee & Lee, the current Blendeds in Anaheim, and the rest of us. So I would like to revisit my earlier discussion, of the "open heavens" in John 1:51, the "servants under me" as related by the Roman centurion in Luke 7, and the scene in front of the throne in Revelations 1 through 3.

Now, why did I pick these three sets of scripture as my portals to the supernatural world? Admittedly they are arbitrary. Someone else might have picked 3 entirely different passages. So I admit my subjectivity here. John 1:51 is interesting to me because it's at the end of the clearly introductory first chapter of John's gospel. Immediately after this the "signs" begin, with the wedding feast at Cana, Galilee in John chapter 2. So this verse, 1:51, stands as a kind of coda to the introduction, and arguably it opens the works of power that follow. If you want to know where Nathaniel saw heavens open, and angels of God ascending and descending, you might start with the miracle of water turning into wine in John Chapter 2. And so forth.

But my raising this verse was mainly to show how Lee with his own agenda moved the conversation away from the actual verse at hand, and on to his underlying motive. Jesus didn't talk in John 1:51 about the church. But because Jacob had commented about the place of his dream in Genesis 28, "Surely this is the gate of heaven; this is the house of God", then Lee turned the attention away from angels ascending and descending, to the Church of Nee and Lee. Nifty move, huh? Likewise, when Jacob poured the oil on the rock, Lee said that was the outpoured Holy Spirit. But the Genesis 28 passage doesn't mention the Holy Spirit, nor does Jesus in John 1:51; is the outpoured Spirit the same as angels ascending and descending upon the heavenly ladder? Or something different? No comment from Lee. "Much traffic" is all we get to acknowledge the actual text.

So the contents of the verse get re-directed to what is profitable for Lee to cover. And the same goes for the information given by the Roman Centurion in Luke 7. No mention of "I have servants under me, and I tell this one..." We instead focus on the next verse: "You just say the word and my servant will be healed"; as if that were all the germane information in this passage. But the Roman shared in detail of the background of the working, and Jesus marveled, and the writer Luke conveyed the information. Why ignore it? Perhaps because it's not central to your "God's economy" or "normal church life" schema.

Lastly, the fall of the angels in Genesis 6 doesn't get much coverage. Think of this: the Bible arguably shows us three falls: Lucifer/Satan in Ezekiel 14/Isaiah 28, the fall of the human race in Genesis 3, and the fall of the angels in Genesis 6 (which is subsequent to, and entirely tied up with, the fallen human race [!!] ). So Jesus shows up and constantly is portrayed as doing battle with fallen spirits who usurp humankind, and oppress them, and this evil spirits/demons connection to Genesis 6 is clearly established in supporting non-canonical literature, and is even referenced in places like Jude verse 6, and yet it is not "central to the divine economy" of Lee so it is ignored. As BP liked to say "We don't care for that".

I am not saying we should become demon fighters and miracle workers. I am saying that we ignore the text because it doesn't prop up our world view. We create a "supernatural worldview" based on whatever texts are convenient, and ignore the rest. And Lee pretended that he focused on the "pure word", as if his approach was equal in purity to the scriptural text itself. News flash: it wasn't. Nor is mine, or yours, which is why we have discussions. A tad of humility is in order here.