My Testimony: Olvin

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

If I'm wrong, or if I'm missing something, someone please correct me. Because as far as I can tell, the teaching concerning "the gopher of ambition," that I learned from the ministry of Witness Lee, is not based on the Bible. Because gophers aren't in the Bible.

Should I be surprised? Does this even matter?

The gopher illustration is rather humorous. I have no idea where WL obtained that phrase or illustration either. It is the hidden meaning in the Bible of words, phrases or stories that WL utilized to explain the Bible.

Originally Posted by Friedel

At times Witness Lee did have a mischievous sense of humor. He also liked saying someone is "more holy than (Sister) Theresa". He was just being facetious.

None of this was doctrine. At least, I did not perceive it to be doctrinal teaching but just a lighthearted way of driving home a point … warning against ambition that could hurt others, not to think more highly of yourself than of others, etc. …

It wasn’t necessarily about doctrine. Pray-reading wasn’t doctrine. Repeating over and over Oh Lord Jesus wasn’t doctrine. This was just eating, drinking and breathing Jesus (Allegorical/Spiritual). Was the concept of the “local church” ground doctrine? This is not a foundational doctrine but you might say that the ground of the city is doctrine and literal whereas I could say it is allegory and spiritual and would include all of the Christians in that city. Lee states, “Day by day he [the Christian] eats and drinks Christ. Christ is gradually digested by him and mingled with him so that he and Christ become one. (WL, The All-Inclusive Spirit of Christ p. 189) Doctrinal or Spiritual (Allegorical)? The Priesthood? Doctrinal or Spiritual (allegorical) The Tabernacle? Doctrinal or Spiritual (Allegorical).

Lee states, “…Matthew 28:19 says that we are to baptize people in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit. There are three persons, but only one name. It is not in the names of the Father, the Son and the Spirit but in the name. The father in the home, the professor in the university, and the doctor in the hospital are also three persons with one name.” (WL The Practical Expression of the Church, p.7) This illustration of the father, professor and the doctor to illustrate the Trinity is called “modalism” and it is what WL got into trouble with at one point but he denied it. Anyway, this is allegory and in this case it is doctrine, foundational Christian doctrine which is being upended.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Dave

The gopher illustration is rather humorous. I have no idea where WL obtained that phrase or illustration either. It is the hidden meaning in the Bible of words, phrases or stories that WL utilized to explain the Bible..

There is nothing wrong with using our own personal homilies to illustrate spiritual principles we see in the Bible. Preachers and pastors do it on Sunday morning from the pulpit: they use their own "parables" to illustrate themes and narratives found within the text.

But Lee's homilies became substitutes for scriptures, and common sense. Our thinking was reduced to WWBLS? What would Brother Lee say? If he talked about gophers, so did we.

Originally Posted by Dave

The It wasn’t necessarily about doctrine. Pray-reading wasn’t doctrine. Repeating over and over Oh Lord Jesus wasn’t doctrine. This was just eating, drinking and breathing Jesus (Allegorical/Spiritual).

Again, nothing wrong with that, per se. Is there a problem with praying? With declaring the name of Jesus? No. "Eating by reading, drinking by prayer" was in a song I remember. Nothing wrong with reading the Bible or praying.

But in the Local Churches Lee's homilies became our sole channel of reality, with no substitutes accepted. So if the apostle Paul recommended, twice, "eating and drinking by singing the Psalms", and Lee wasn't interested, then neither were we. Lee's homilies supervened the Bible itself. So eating, drinking, breathing Jesus became what Lee told us it was, no more or less. Lee's folk homilies replaced the Bible.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

There is nothing wrong with using our own personal homilies to illustrate spiritual principles we see in the Bible. Preachers and pastors do it on Sunday morning from the pulpit: they use their own "parables" to illustrate themes and narratives found within the text.

But Lee's homilies became substitutes for scriptures, and common sense. Our thinking was reduced to WWBLS? What would Brother Lee say? If he talked about gophers, so did we.



Again, nothing wrong with that, per se. Is there a problem with praying? With declaring the name of Jesus? No. "Eating by reading, drinking by prayer" was in a song I remember. Nothing wrong with reading the Bible or praying.

But in the Local Churches Lee's homilies became our sole channel of reality, with no substitutes accepted. So if the apostle Paul recommended, twice, "eating and drinking by singing the Psalms", and Lee wasn't interested, then neither were we. Lee's homilies supervened the Bible itself. So eating, drinking, breathing Jesus became what Lee told us it was, no more or less. Lee's folk homilies replaced the Bible.

And not only our sole channel of reality, it often replaced reality. (Sounds like and Adam Savage line from Mythbusters).

Pray-reading, while ostensibly spiritual and even scriptural, was a practice that too often divorced the words from their context. I so often gripe about the common practice (not even just in the LRC) of reading the Bible as a collection of disconnected fortune cookies arranged in such a way that there is a cover story that really doesn't mean anything. Instead, the meaning is in the context-less fortune cookies. Add pray-reading (the LRC version as described in that little booklet) to the mix and even the words of the verse get disconnected. They cease to be even the context-less sentence that is the fortune cookie. Now the whole thing is a blank. It is wrapped in emotional "spirituality" but has lost its solid meaning. Now the suggestion that it means something other than what the actual construct of words means can be made. And it is so divorced from the context that anything beyond the little fortune cookie will never be considered.

It is almost as if we had the words so thoroughly disjointed that we could put then into a boiling pot, and out would come something new and amazing. Like a golden calf.

I have no problem with praying over and with scripture. But "I. Oh, Lord. I am. oh Lord Jesus. I. Amen. I. I. Amen Amen, Oh Lord Jesus . . ." is too easily a variant on sitting in a yoga position humming "om." Your mind becomes disconnected from rational thoughts. Not always. But it becomes more about our experience of emotions than a meaningful prayer with the scripture as the base.

I know that it is difficult to think that anything can be said negatively about including the words "Lord Jesus" in something. But I honestly think that those can become no more meaningful words than the excited declaration "Jesus Christ" when some heathen gets startled or their toe stepped on. And in this particular case, it too easily becomes part of Lee's system of error. Use truth and a kind of prayer to disconnect the follower from their discernment. Anything that works.

And someone will complain that they have had such wonderful times with God through pray-reading. And I did not say that pray-reading was simply wrong or not Christian. I said that it is easily an emotional distraction from the truth and potentially a way to manipulate the mind by disconnecting more than verses from context, but the words of verses from each other.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

And not only our sole channel of reality, it often replaced reality. (Sounds like and Adam Savage line from Mythbusters).

Pray-reading, while ostensibly spiritual and even scriptural, was a practice that too often divorced the words from their context. I so often gripe about the common practice (not even just in the LRC) of reading the Bible as a collection of disconnected fortune cookies arranged in such a way that there is a cover story that really doesn't mean anything. Instead, the meaning is in the context-less fortune cookies. Add pray-reading (the LRC version as described in that little booklet) to the mix and even the words of the verse get disconnected. They cease to be even the context-less sentence that is the fortune cookie. Now the whole thing is a blank. It is wrapped in emotional "spirituality" but has lost its solid meaning. Now the suggestion that it means something other than what the actual construct of words means can be made. And it is so divorced from the context that anything beyond the little fortune cookie will never be considered.

It is almost as if we had the words so thoroughly disjointed that we could put then into a boiling pot, and out would come something new and amazing. Like a golden calf.

I have no problem with praying over and with scripture. But "I. Oh, Lord. I am. oh Lord Jesus. I. Amen. I. I. Amen Amen, Oh Lord Jesus . . ." is too easily a variant on sitting in a yoga position humming "om." Your mind becomes disconnected from rational thoughts. Not always. But it becomes more about our experience of emotions than a meaningful prayer with the scripture as the base.

I know that it is difficult to think that anything can be said negatively about including the words "Lord Jesus" in something. But I honestly think that those can become no more meaningful words than the excited declaration "Jesus Christ" when some heathen gets startled or their toe stepped on. And in this particular case, it too easily becomes part of Lee's system of error. Use truth and a kind of prayer to disconnect the follower from their discernment. Anything that works.

And someone will complain that they have had such wonderful times with God through pray-reading. And I did not say that pray-reading was simply wrong or not Christian. I said that it is easily an emotional distraction from the truth and potentially a way to manipulate the mind by disconnecting more than verses from context, but the words of verses from each other.

Further clarification. Great stuff! I would think that extends to primarily reading Life Studies and the trainings that go on where you lose touch with Christian spiritual reality and live in the WL world reality where it is difficult to extract oneself.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by aron

There is nothing wrong with using our own personal homilies to illustrate spiritual principles we see in the Bible. Preachers and pastors do it on Sunday morning from the pulpit: they use their own "parables" to illustrate themes and narratives found within the text.

But Lee's homilies became substitutes for scriptures, and common sense. Our thinking was reduced to WWBLS? What would Brother Lee say? If he talked about gophers, so did we.

Again, nothing wrong with that, per se. Is there a problem with praying? With declaring the name of Jesus? No. "Eating by reading, drinking by prayer" was in a song I remember. Nothing wrong with reading the Bible or praying.

But in the Local Churches Lee's homilies became our sole channel of reality, with no substitutes accepted. So if the apostle Paul recommended, twice, "eating and drinking by singing the Psalms", and Lee wasn't interested, then neither were we. Lee's homilies supervened the Bible itself. So eating, drinking, breathing Jesus became what Lee told us it was, no more or less. Lee's folk homilies replaced the Bible.

You took what I said a step further for additional clarification. Good job!

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

The gopher illustration is rather humorous. I have no idea where WL obtained that phrase or illustration either. It is the hidden meaning in the Bible of words, phrases or stories that WL utilized to explain the Bible.

It wasn’t necessarily about doctrine. Pray-reading wasn’t doctrine. Repeating over and over Oh Lord Jesus wasn’t doctrine. This was just eating, drinking and breathing Jesus (Allegorical/Spiritual). Was the concept of the “local church” ground doctrine? This is not a foundational doctrine but you might say that the ground of the city is doctrine and literal whereas I could say it is allegory and spiritual and would include all of the Christians in that city. Lee states, “Day by day he [the Christian] eats and drinks Christ. Christ is gradually digested by him and mingled with him so that he and Christ become one. (WL, The All-Inclusive Spirit of Christ p. 189) Doctrinal or Spiritual (Allegorical)? The Priesthood? Doctrinal or Spiritual (allegorical) The Tabernacle? Doctrinal or Spiritual (Allegorical).

Perhaps it's all doctrine, and none of it's doctrine, all at the same time.

As a junior high school kid, I heard that Witness Lee was the Minister of the Age. I heard that kind of a lot. And I read Life-Study messages in which Witness Lee allegorized the minute details of which parts of which animals were considered "clean" and "unclean" in the Old Testament, and the measurements of this type of wood, and that type of gold, in the tabernacle, et cetera, et cetera, with all the minutiae endowed with a particular, spiritual significance...

So then I learned about the gopher of ambition, and next thing you know, there's yet another "Biblical type" in my head. Er, I mean, my spirit. Yeah, in my spirit. That's right. (Remember the doctrine of concentric circles? Wait, what? I'm getting dizzy... )

But then, I think I know where Witness Lee got the gopher metaphor. I think he was on a plane. Watching Caddyshack. Without the audio. Because he didn't want to buy the headphones.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Perhaps it's all doctrine, and none of it's doctrine, all at the same time.

As a junior high school kid, I heard that Witness Lee was the Minister of the Age. I heard that kind of a lot. And I read Life-Study messages in which Witness Lee allegorized the minute details of which parts of which animals were considered "clean" and "unclean" in the Old Testament, and the measurements of this type of wood, and that type of gold, in the tabernacle, et cetera, et cetera, with all the minutiae endowed with a particular, spiritual significance...

So then I learned about the gopher of ambition, and next thing you know, there's yet another "Biblical type" in my head. Er, I mean, my spirit. Yeah, in my spirit. That's right. (Remember the doctrine of concentric circles? Wait, what? I'm getting dizzy... )

But then, I think I know where Witness Lee got the gopher metaphor. I think he was on a plane. Watching Caddyshack. Without the audio. Because he didn't want to buy the headphones.

You might be right about Caddyshack. I just don't know how he came up with the fact that the gopher was ambitious in that movie but without headphones he could have reached any conclusion.

3 circles. I drew that for many people and either brought them into the church or to Jesus esp in Santa Cruz. The details of the tabernacle...when I left the LC I started going to an AOG church and after a few months the pastor asked me if I would teach adult Sunday School. I said yes and went home and built a tabernacle in the wilderness out of felt and balsam wood. I used it to teach the adult sunday school class and it seemingly went quite well but in the end I couldn't go on simply because it didn't connect. I was talking allegorically trying to spiritualize it based on what we had learned from WL and other authors (F.W. Grant) to make it relevant and I am sure they may have been impressed but I didn't think it was connecting. I left. In a practical way I don't think in the environment of the LC it didn't connect either.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

You might be right about Caddyshack. I just don't know how he came up with the fact that the gopher was ambitious in that movie but without headphones he could have reached any conclusion.

Well these little guys are obviously up to some kind of mischief. And if you look really hard, you should be able to discern the ambition. I mean, look into his eyes. Can't you just see the gopher's ambition?

You do see it, don't you?