Spiritual Discernment

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It is quite telling that LSM would claim that discernment is something other than what the word discernment is understood to mean. Obviously, what Ron speaks about is outright absurd. Out of curiosity, I took a moment to see what Nee had to say on the subject, and what I found was that he approached it a lot more subtly than Ron did:


Here Nee doesn't necessarily reject discernment of good and evil as being 'death' like Ron does, but Nee does insinuate that discernment of good and evil would be limited to those with "good minds", implying that it's too complicated for the average person. It's a subtle argument, because it fails to recognize the fact that many issues are not complicated. Just as much as we need to recognize good and evil we must also be willing to act accordingly. The latter is the difficult part, and probably where we actually tend to struggle.

Quite surprisingly, Nee then goes on to say that wisdom shouldn't be utilized to assist in knowing good and evil (because God supposedly has condemned wisdom). This directly contradicts the Word. We can and should utilize wisdom, and if we are lacking in that respect, it's as simple as asking for it:
James 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

Towards the end of the excerpt, Nee moves his argument towards an esoteric "inner sense," which has since been relabeled as the "sense of life." I should say that I'm not against discernment in a prayerful way, but it the case of the LC, it is nothing more than an excuse to bypass common sense and solid principles. Of particular concern, Nee says "This is why sometimes we can conjure up no logical reason for opposing a certain teaching, yet in the very depth of our being arises a resistance." I find this to be highly objectionable. If a personal 'resistance' is to be the metric for discerning teachings, that throws everything else out the window. If I have a personal resistance to my alarm clock, does that mean that I can skip going to work? Of course not. It's a stupid example I know, but that illustrates how easy it is for things to get skewed with something 'inward' and esoteric comes into play. Frankly speaking, if someone says that they have a certain 'sense' about something, I'm not going to question it, but that does not mean it is something they should turn around and project on others.

In my experience we need both knowledge/wisdom and the Spirit's leading, and they work together. Knowledge and wisdom give us the general parameters, and the Spirit does the fine tuning. We know, for example, to be humble and kind toward people we meet. That's a given, and we proceed that way in our daily lives. But as we are carrying out such standard behavior, the Spirit may lead us to say or do something more specific to the situation. We may be having a conversation with our neighbor, and feel led to offer to help him fix his fence. We probably wouldn't have even felt this leading if we hadn't held a general attitude of charity toward him in the first place.

So if we don't have the general standard behavior the Bible teaches us to maintain in our relationships and privately, then the Spirit cannot do such fine tuning. He can only try to rebuke us. It's like the difference between a horseman riding a fine show horse and riding a stupid mule.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In my experience we need both knowledge/wisdom and the Spirit's leading, and they work together. Knowledge and wisdom give us the general parameters, and the Spirit does the fine tuning. We know, for example, to be humble and kind toward people we meet. That's a given, and we proceed that way in our daily lives. But as we are carrying out such standard behavior, the Spirit may lead us to say or do something more specific to the situation. We may be having a conversation with our neighbor, and feel led to offer to help him fix his fence. We probably wouldn't have even felt this leading if we hadn't held a general attitude of charity toward him in the first place.

So if we don't have the general standard behavior the Bible teaches us to maintain in our relationships and privately, then the Spirit cannot do such fine tuning. He can only try to rebuke us. It's like the difference between a horseman riding a fine show horse and riding a stupid mule.

This is a good post by Igzy. If LCers are reading this thread they might think that there is the intention to be dismissive of the Spirit's leading. It's not that at all, LCers just have things in the wrong order. If they don't understand the basic principles that they should live by and act upon, then any discussion of the Spirit's leading is meaningless.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is a good post by Igzy. If LCers are reading this thread they might think that there is the intention to be dismissive of the Spirit's leading. It's not that at all, LCers just have things in the wrong order. If they don't understand the basic principles that they should live by and act upon, then any discussion of the Spirit's leading is meaningless.

Thanks, Freedom. I think LCers believe the point is to only need the Spirit; to reach some plane where the behavioral principles of the Bible are unnecessary. But I don't know anyone who has achieved such a state. The Bible's principles are a natural protective framework in which we can go about our lives with reasonable confidence that we are behaving in a way pleasing to God. Within that framework, the Spirit speaks to us.

Witness Lee talked about "living Christ." I think this idea was his attempt to reach this plane of not needing everyday knowledge and wisdom for behavioral decisions, but only the Spirit. He himself confessed failure at achieving this standard.

It is, in fact, a false goal. Certainly we should walk as intimately with God as possible. But have your ever tried to hear the Spirit's leading on every little thing you do moment by moment? God doesn't give it. When I try to do that He seems to say to me, "That's not how it works. I'm not going to micromanage you."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Thanks, Freedom. I think LCers believe the point is to only need the Spirit; to reach some plane where the behavioral principles of the Bible are unnecessary. But I don't know anyone who has achieved such a state. The Bible's principles are a natural protective framework in which we can go about our lives with reasonable confidence that we are behaving in a way pleasing to God. Within that framework, the Spirit speaks to us.

So true. I can't tell you how many times someone excused away something inappropriate with the saying, "we just need more life," or "I just need to gain more Christ."

With that attitude we will never grow or change, yet the saying is so disarming.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Thanks, Freedom. I think LCers believe the point is to only need the Spirit; to reach some plane where the behavioral principles of the Bible are unnecessary. But I don't know anyone who has achieved such a state. The Bible's principles are a natural protective framework in which we can go about our lives with reasonable confidence that we are behaving in a way pleasing to God. Within that framework, the Spirit speaks to us.

Witness Lee talked about "living Christ." I think this idea was his attempt to reach this plane of not needing everyday knowledge and wisdom for behavioral decisions, but only the Spirit. He himself confessed failure at achieving this standard.

It is, in fact, a false goal. Certainly we should walk as intimately with God as possible. But have your ever tried to hear the Spirit's leading on every little thing you do moment by moment? God doesn't give it. When I try to do that He seems to say to me, "That's not how it works. I'm not going to micromanage you."

When I think about all I heard about "living Christ" in the LC, it all once seemed so reasonable, but just look at the outcome. Things are a mess, and that's an understatement. That's not to say that we shouldn't strive for what Paul spoke of in Phil 1:21 "For me to live is Christ". But what does this actually mean? Barnes notes on this verse has a helpful explanation:

For to me to live is Christ - My sole aim in living is to glorify Christ. He is the supreme End of my life, and I value it only as being devoted to his honor - Doddridge.... This implied the following things:
(1) a purpose to know as much of Christ as it was possible to know...
(2) a purpose to imitate Christ - to make him the model of his life...

It we equate "for me to live is Christ" with a simple desire to glorify Christ and make that our aim, the pieces all fall into place. there is nothing overly complicated or esoteric about that. Let's compare this to what WL says:

The Christian life is not merely an ethical life, a good life, or a moral life. The Christian life, of course, should be ethical, moral, and excellent. But strictly speaking, it is not an ethical life. It is something higher than an ethical life. The Christian life is a life that lives Christ. In our living as a Christian, others should not see merely our goodness, our ethics, or our morality. They should see Christ. We Christians should live a life that lives Christ and magnifies Him.

Witness Lee, The Christian Life, Ch 1

When reading this statement, it might sound somewhat reasonable at first, but there's just something not quite right about it. And that is, of course, the fact that WL tries to separate ethics/morality from "living Christ." What he says seems to be intended to minimize the importance of ethics/morality. The flaw in his logic the failure to recognize that these are interdependent if we desire to glorify God.

Speaking of the Christian life, WL says, and I quote "it is not an ethical life." Ummm, yes it is. Very much so. It is impossible to glorify Christ if we're morally deficient or lacking in basic ethics. Jesus himself said: For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Of course, this doesn't mean that righteousness is found in ourselves, but through faith in Christ (Phil 3:9).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I think about all I heard about "living Christ" in the LC, it all once seemed so reasonable, but just look at the outcome. Things are a mess, and that's an understatement. That's not to say that we shouldn't strive for what Paul spoke of in Phil 1:21 "For me to live is Christ". But what does this actually mean? Barnes notes on this verse has a helpful explanation:
It we equate "for me to live is Christ" with a simple desire to glorify Christ and make that our aim, the pieces all fall into place. there is nothing overly complicated or esoteric about that. Let's compare this to what WL says:
When reading this statement, it might sound somewhat reasonable at first, but there's just something not quite right about it. And that is, of course, the fact that WL tries to separate ethics/morality from "living Christ." What he says seems to be intended to minimize the importance of ethics/morality. The flaw in his logic the failure to recognize that these are interdependent if we desire to glorify God.

Speaking of the Christian life, WL says, and I quote "it is not an ethical life." Ummm, yes it is. Very much so. It is impossible to glorify Christ if we're morally deficient or lacking in basic ethics. Jesus himself said: For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Of course, this doesn't mean that righteousness is found in ourselves, but through faith in Christ (Phil 3:9).

Yeah, and this all relates back to the LCM's erroneous stance of making Good somehow at odds with God. True good is never at odds with God. And if good is at odds with God, then it isn't truly good. But the LCM acted as if a person sincerely trying to be good is somehow actually evil in some way. Certainly our good works can't save us. But the idea that God is not pleased when human beings are, for example, sincerely kind to one another, sacrificing, loving and so forth, is just a weird, twisted reading of things.

This thinking has led LCMers to scoff at all kinds of genuinely good works done by others, while doing none themselves. I'm sure, for example, than many LCMers are unimpressed with Mother Theresa, who may have done more to spread the genuine love and testimony of God than anyone who ever lived.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yeah, and this all relates back to the LCM's erroneous stance of making Good somehow at odds with God. True good is never at odds with God. And if good is at odds with God, then it isn't truly good. But the LCM acted as if a person sincerely trying to be good is somehow actually evil in some way. Certainly our good works can't save us. But the idea that God is not pleased when human beings are, for example, sincerely kind to one another, sacrificing, loving and so forth, is just a weird, twisted reading of things.

This thinking has led LCMers to scoff at all kinds of genuinely good works done by others, while doing none themselves. I'm sure, for example, than many LCMers are unimpressed with Mother Theresa, who may have done more to spread the genuine love and testimony of God than anyone who ever lived.

Not too long ago, I saw a LCer make a Facebook post of a video with some pastor speaking. The title of the sermon was something like "Good or God?" Of course, just about the only reason that an LCer would post such a video is because it reflects Lee's ideology. But I did find it troubling that this whole notion of "good versus God" isn't just limited to the LC. I'm inclined to think that within the LC, members are simply afraid of the boogeyman called 'good' that Lee created. Thus any teaching that 'protects' them from this is held with the utmost esteem.

We know that WL had his motivations for downplaying good, and it was none other than to desensitize members to his shenanigans. Good is nowhere near the 'problem' that some have made it out to be. I do recognize the possibility of being distracted from God by good, however, this doesn't necessitate approaching the topic of good suspiciously nor does it imply that there is a fundamental problem with good. As Christians we believe that good and God are synonymous and that all good things come from God. I choose to live my life accordingly.

There has already been good discussion about good versus evil acting as a pivot point by which we operate. The danger is not trying to do good and then messing up or failing. The danger is when something else, even something unknown becomes what we claim to live by. In the LC they say they want to operate according to 'life'. What is life? No one knows for sure, because it has been ill-defined. But one thing they sing in the LC is that "it's the life life life that makes us want to shout." So we know that 'life' is something that lead them to shout. Kind of bizarre if you ask me. But what's so different between that and other groups who were led by the life life life to go out to the jungle to and drink kool aid. The difference is only the severity. Neither behavior can be rationalized by any ordinary metric, and that's the danger in demonizing the basic standards that God gave us to live by.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Not too long ago, I saw a LCer make a Facebook post of a video with some pastor speaking. The title of the sermon was something like "Good or God?" Of course, just about the only reason that an LCer would post such a video is because it reflects Lee's ideology. But I did find it troubling that this whole notion of "good versus God" isn't just limited to the LC. I'm inclined to think that within the LC, members are simply afraid of the boogeyman called 'good' that Lee created. Thus any teaching that 'protects' them from this is held with the utmost esteem.

I wonder what the intent was? To ridicule non-LSM Christianity? On the topic of Facebook posts, I do know Pastor Greg Locke is popular with LCers I know.