Deification

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

To be honest, I can't say I really know what to think regarding this subject. It's been so ingrained in me that the biggest problem is that I don't know how LC views compare to that of mainstream Christianity. What I can say is that I have never been completely comfortable with how the LC expresses their views on deification. I don't feel that they provide enough scriptural support. The phrase "God's economy is to make man God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead" is well known in the LC, but where is that teaching explicitly found in the Bible? If they could simply provide more scriptural support for their teaching, I would be much less reluctant about accepting it.

Awhile back, Paul Onica and Kerry Robichaux produced a translation of a thesis by French scholar Jules Gross titled The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers. When I initially heard about this, my reaction was that they must be a little desperate to support Lee's teachings. If a teaching is wholly Biblical, you shouldn't have to go to the works of an obscure scholar to support it. The problem is that Lee, being held as an infallible minister, chose to support deification, so now the BB's have to scramble to find ways to also support that position.

It seems that Lee liked to make statements for the shock value. When you combine that with his already questionable teachings, it is a publicity nightmare. Being pressured to shout things like "I am a god-man" in a meeting (something I've had to do before) isn't exactly what most people want to do when they attend a church. I don't care how well founded the LC teaching on deification is, they don't have the ability to teach this subject in a "normal" way, and in my mind that is a big part of the problem.

This is a great post.

Back in the early 90's "high peak teaching days," I dug into this until I convinced myself of its veracity. I was now on board as an official god-man. Then I started to ask myself what good is this teaching? I studied all week and then for 5 minutes on Lord's Day morning I would speak it to others. But what about the rest of my life? Who could I tell this stuff to? What good was it after all?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Back in the early 90's "high peak teaching days," I dug into this until I convinced myself of its veracity. I was now on board as an official god-man. Then I started to ask myself what good is this teaching? I studied all week and then for 5 minutes on Lord's Day morning I would speak it to others. But what about the rest of my life? Who could I tell this stuff to? What good was it after all?

From the NW where I was meeting at the time, the messages were received, but not believed. I observed much reluctance on the faces of many brothers and sisters from the LSM/LC assembly I met with.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a great post.

Back in the early 90's "high peak teaching days," I dug into this until I convinced myself of its veracity. I was now on board as an official god-man. Then I started to ask myself what good is this teaching? I studied all week and then for 5 minutes on Lord's Day morning I would speak it to others. But what about the rest of my life? Who could I tell this stuff to? What good was it after all?

Though I was never comfortable with the teachings on deification, I never saw the need to raise any issue of it, I just accepted it for what it was. I never once had any personal experience where the doctrine of deification meant anything to me. It was all a matter of memorizing the phrases and paying the necessary lip service.

I think you also raise a good point, that is even if Lee's teachings of deification had some value, it's not like you can just go around and tell people about it. Telling someone you're a "god-man" is probably the easiest way to scare someone away.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a great post.

Back in the early 90's "high peak teaching days," I dug into this until I convinced myself of its veracity. I was now on board as an official god-man. Then I started to ask myself what good is this teaching? I studied all week and then for 5 minutes on Lord's Day morning I would speak it to others. But what about the rest of my life? Who could I tell this stuff to? What good was it after all?

If Lee was right about his deification claims then he should have been able to walk on water. But history has revealed that Lee wasn't transformed even a little bit. Thus his deification doctrine was empty, and nothing but smoke and mirrors. At best it was esoteric Bible idealism.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

If Lee was right about his deification claims then he should have been able to walk on water. But history has revealed that Lee wasn't transformed even a little bit. ... At best it was esoteric Bible idealism.

Deification (read: glorification, or transfiguration) should follow transformation. Yet Lee showed himself as an avaricious merchandizer from the beginning, and where did that get transformed? Deification was just the latest product, packaged and sold to the masses.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Deification (read: glorification, or transfiguration) should follow transformation. Yet Lee showed himself as an avaricious merchandizer from the beginning, and where did that get transformed? Deification was just the latest product, packaged and sold to the masses.

Somehow Lee's "deification program" was able to bypass the requirements of righteousness and integrity. We were all programmed to believe that Lee was so "deified," that he had reached the same infallibility status like the Popes of old, and hence, "even if he is wrong, he is right."

He taught all his followers to circumvent the laws just as he did, but keep on "eating Jesus," and all will be well. Forget about obeying the plain commandments of scripture, like "love your neighbor" and "don't sue your brother in court," because Lee has "recovered" the pure word for us and "interpreted" the Bible to mean something that every other Christian has missed out on for 2,000 years.

Who were we to have an opinion about what was going on in the LCM? None of us was even "qualified" to fellowship with Lee, since he alone was the deified "god-man." Who were we to question the deeds of the "acting god?"

[aron]

"The time for silence and shrinking back out of fear of being labeled heretical, cultic, or unorthodox must come to an end . . . The believers in Christ become God in and through their organic union with Christ; the believers in Christ become God through regeneration; the believers in Christ become God through organic salvation; the believers in Christ become God by eating God; the believers in Christ become God by loving God; the believers in Christ become God through the function of the law of life." Affirmation & Critique 2002

"Believers in Christ become God by loving God"...?? And my dog becomes me by wagging his tail when I enter the room...?? But I digress...

Part of the challenge of our journey is that we exist in a position where we simultaneously try to reconcile our heritage and yet go forward. Our heritage is, after all, the process of going forward! So we honor the past by leaving it. I've noted that DYL & TC are truer heirs of WL by taking kingdoms for themselves, and drawing people into their own orbit, than the Blendeds, who are essentially curators in someone else's museum.

So we have the uncomfortable choice: honor the past by staying there, or go on and risk be labeled a non-conformist? WL championed the process of orthodoxy, versus heresy, but when his own ideas butted up with conventional thinking he labeled himself non-orthodox. This is one of the uncomfortable legacies of Protestantism. Like Paul, we loudly shout, "I am a Pharisee and a son of Pharisees!" but we are Pharisees who "saw the true light" and moved on.

My argument here is that groups like the Latter Day Saints, the Jehovahs Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Local Church all present their initiates with a "warped present world" scenario, including (importantly) the current religious world, which they then contrast to their "true recovery of the past". So they offer, like WL, a "good land" in contrast with their depiction of "Babylon" or "Egypt" or "the wilderness". Now, they argue, the shadows must fall and the day must break forth. Look at that stark challenge to the status quo of contemporary Christianity: "The time for silence and shrinking back out of fear of being labeled heretical, cultic, or unorthodox must come to an end..."

Unfortunately the initiate may at some point wake up, after passing through the stages of being an avid novice, then a regular, and then a pillar of the New and True Church, and find out that (s)he is still a "stranger in a strange land". As the poet said, "Welcome my son/Welcome to the machine/Where have you been?/That's all right - we know just where you've been/So welcome to the machine." In other words, you thought that you'd escaped the machine, but now find that you're in yet another arm of the machine, stranger than before!

The stranger in a strange land archetype is perhaps this: the True Israelite (Jesus) presents his Jewish hearers with the truth of their own kingdom. He plainly reveals to them an embodiment of the true priesthood, joining man to God, and the true kingship, offering God's supervision of human affairs. Jesus is the heavenly Man who shows fallen, earthbound humanity their way home, to the Father's House. But His delusional peers don't recognize their own Priest and King, and drive Him out, where He offers this reality to new initiates. This was also Moses, also Martin Luther, also WN and then his adjutant WL. (And also Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Sun Myung Moon, etc etc etc). Raised in some shadow of the truth, then the True Light bursts forth, which creates tension with the precipitating shadows.

Orthodoxy, in this narrative, is bringer of both shadow and light. Not fully light, yet bearing it. So there is tension. Or else we ignore tension, live in a museum, and pretend there is nothing to reconcile. It has all been figured out. Which is where the Blendeds find themselves: in a museum. They have the New and True Orthodoxy, and are its champions. "Some day the world will recognize Witness Lee", they say. Deification, partial rapture, one church per city with one apostle (now deceased) presiding over all, through all, and in all. The new orthodoxy.

As another poet said, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" (I know we've quoted this before, but it's so succinct! Short, quick, and to the point).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Unfortunately the initiate may at some point wake up, after passing through the stages of being an avid novice, then a regular, and then a pillar of the New and True Church, and find out that (s)he is still a "stranger in a strange land". As the poet said, "Welcome my son/Welcome to the machine/Where have you been?/That's all right - we know just where you've been/So welcome to the machine." In other words, you thought that you'd escaped the machine, but now find that you're in yet another arm of the machine, stranger than before!

aron, kind of funny your quote from the poet, especially the next line you did not include ...

Welcome my son,
Welcome to the machine.
Where have you been?
It's alright we know where you've been.
You've been in the pipeline,
Filling in time

The "pipeline," of course, being a reference to the LCM children's program first initiated by Gen Gruhler in the early 90's. It supposedly began at their birth, and consummated with their graduation from the FTTA, to start one's career as a Full-Timer of Witness Lee.

More that a few loving LCM mothers got freaked out just thinking about their children emerging from such a machine ...

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

aron, kind of funny your quote from the poet, especially the next line you did not include ...The "pipeline," of course, being a reference to the LCM children's program first initiated by Gen Gruhler in the early 90's. It supposedly began at their birth, and consummated with their graduation from the FTTA, to start one's career as a Full-Timer of Witness Lee.

More that a few loving LCM mothers got freaked out just thinking about their children emerging from such a machine ...

While growing up, I generally had a positive impression of the LC and looked up to the FTTA attendees and graduates. I saw them as people who gave their lives to the Lord. It seemed like such a good decision to make. Later on, I came to the realization through what I saw around me that the FTTA was not much of a "decision", attendance was quite often a result of pressure.

One thing that was really telling was when I saw some resist this pressure. What happened is the pressure got even more intense. That wasn't normal at all. It forced to to realize that the FTTA is not simply a "Bible school", but it more of a factory or WL duplication center. I am convinced that if it weren't for the FTTA, the LC would be quickly declining in the U.S. The younger generation seems to find the LC less relevant as the older LC generation. The solution to that is to send them off to the FTTA where they learn how to dress, speak LC lingo, and "play church". There is enough doctrine to get them convinced that they possess a great "vision" and to justify the cultural disconnect of the LC in America.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

...groups like the Latter Day Saints, the Jehovahs Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Local Church all present their initiates with a "warped present world" scenario.. which they then contrast to their proposed "true recovery of the past"...

Unfortunately the initiate may at some point wake up, after going through the stages of.. the New and True Church, and find out that (s)he is still a "stranger in a strange land".

The broader theme I see, and the warning which accompanies it, is going beyond one's station, or measure. Admittedly the present scenario is lacking. Protestantism is degraded, RCC is warped, Greek Orthodoxy is stale, and many "free groups" and post-Protestant spin-offs are indeed wild. But what to do? Start yet another religious movement? How to guarantee you won't become wildest of all, and drag many with you?

One over-arching theme in the OT is what I call "the three falls": that of Satan, humankind, then angels. All three erred in going beyond their station. It is one thing to see that the situation is hardly perfect, and another to present its solution. WN saw the splinter, and his proposal became a beam. We all do this, to some degree; it's easy to judge, hard to heal.

My template is found with the aged apostle John, who saw the Asian churches in disarray, and used this as a larger jeremiad against decay and corruption. "Blessed is he who reads and keeps the word therein; for the time is short"... just as Paul had told the Colossians to read his epistle to the Laodiceans and vice versa, John fully expected everyone to read his epistles to the seven churches. All seven epistles were together in the same book!

But did John go further, and propose a new movement, on "virgin soil"? If anyone could have declared it hopeless, and chucked it all and started anew, it would have been John, but he didn't. But WN was saved how many years before he started a new movement, and "took the new ground"? Two years? Two years saved, and he started his new movement? (Lee, Watchman Nee, a Seer of the Divine Revelation, pp. 41-43)

Jesus fully dealt with all 3 falls. All problems have been resolved. The Spirit of Jesus is here, and will reveal "this Jesus"! Don't move, no matter how degraded things seem to be... otherwise we're tricked into acting, and our last state becomes worse than the first. A strange land, indeed.

[aron]

The archetype is perhaps this: the True Israelite (Jesus) presents his Jewish hearers with the truth of their own kingdom. He reveals to them the true priesthood, joining man to God, and the true kingship, offering God's supervision of human affairs. Jesus is the heavenly Man... This was also Moses, also Martin Luther, also WN and then his adjutant WL... also Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Sun Myung Moon, etc... Raised in some shadow of the truth, then the True Light bursts forth, which creates tension with the precipitating shadows.

It may seem crass or even blasphemous to lump Jesus' narrative together with those of Moses, Martin Luther, and Watchman Nee, along with David Koresh, Joseph Smith, and Sun Myung Moon. My answer is that history has fully redeemed the narrative of "this Jesus". Why? He was raised from the dead, and by resurrection, God designated Him as Heir of Life and Savior of the World. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The rest of them, their graves remain to this day. Peter presented all this clearly in Acts 2: Jesus' narrative is unique; He's revealed as the singular Christ. The rest simply create larger mausoleums for themselves.

Look at what happened to the Moon cult when he died (Wikipedia):

"The True Family, in Unification Church terminology, is the family of church founder and leader Sun Myung Moon and his wife Hak Ja Han. Church members regard Moon as the Second Coming of Christ, and he and his wife as the "True Parents" of humankind, who have realized the ideal of true love as the incarnation of God's Word. The members of the Unification Movement generally address or refer to Rev. and Mrs. Moon as "Father" and "Mother" or "True Father" and "True Mother." Their children are known as the "True Children."

Rev. Moon, now deceased, is buried in what I'm sure is a fine Marble Box, and his son, one of his "True Children", is running the Moon Museum... sorry, Unification Church... the king is dead, long live the king!