Fearing God

[OBW]

Another missed thread that has more promise than was given. But before I start on it, I will look at a sidebar that occurred between Nell and StG. I know that I gave her some push-back the other day in a different context, but she is right here.

One of the important issues with a forum discussion is sticking to the topic. I admit that sometimes a discussion results in another point, term, etc., coming up that is not defined or agreed upon. But other than that, posting something not on topic is generally frowned upon. And if it is done constantly it can become construed as an attempt to derail the actual topic. So off-subject or irrelevant (to the topic) conversations not actually spawned by the topic are not welcome. And disagreeing about something is not necessarily a spiritual problem that needs a "why can't we just get along" kind of pick-me-up to make us realize that we shouldn't disagree and just drop the discussion. Not saying that you (StG) are trying to do that. But if two or more want to discuss a particular subject, trying to steer them away from it is not helpful (at best) and technically subject to some kind of censure (at worst). So despite my disagreement with Nell in that other thread, she is spot on here. And maybe even rather generous. And that generosity might be the underlying reason for the heat you got these last few days.

Maybe (in my opinion) Nell picked the wrong instance to actually take you to task (this past few days). But the evidence is that she is generally right. Disruptive, not on topic posts might be accepted occasionally as a kind of humor. But once the frequency increases, and is multiple times within a single thread, your posts, no matter how much you don't intend to disrupt the discussion, will do exactly that. I would say that including references to the content of your posts (repetitions of Leeisms and favoritism to old-school LC stuff — even if you don't actually realize it is Leeisms) might be a misdirection from ensuring that you understand the nature of the "crime," but it is, nonetheless, a "crime."

Now, to the topic.

I see this kind of statement from Lee as just more detailed evidence of his lack of qualification as any kind of Christian teacher. He was too often laser-focused on a particular passage and then insisted that anything that wandered into that realm of "truth" was ruled by this one instance. Sort of an extension of his insistence on "always speaking the same thing."

(My intent with this opening is to potentially broaden this topic into an example of a rather common error in Lee's teaching and rhetoric.)

Examples of this kind of thinking include those who want to trot out "God is love" and then have to reject anything that might be punishment because they cannot understand that most statements in the bible have contexts. They are seldom one-size-fits-all edicts. "God never changes" is another. And it is true in a context. In his nature, he is not fickle. He does not shift from benevolent to tyrant. But he clearly can change his mind. There is a record of his consideration that he might have been wrong to create mankind. And it took Moses some serious pleading to talk him down from destroying the entire camp and starting over with Moses as a stand-in for Abraham. While neither may have been quite as clear as that, God changed his mind. And we benefit from it.

My point is that when it comes to various commands relating to our Christian walk, unless there is a stated hierarchy among them we should take each one of them as important and relevant. And this one particular example — fear God and turn away from evil v express God — is a false dichotomy. I would suggest that in making this one statement, he has effectively insinuated that any other thinking or activity is "negative." Being righteous is negative, only express God. Trying to love your neighbor is negative, only express God.

But what is it to express God? What is the image of God we were created to express? Seems that righteousness is front and center. And righteousness is an opposite of evil. So turning away from evil must be part of righteousness which is a centerpiece of the image of God. We also see love of God and neighbor, justice (care for widow, orphan, alien), etc., as the commandments. Even the verse saying that "the truth will set you free" is predicated upon obedience, not isolated, stand-alone truth.

We do not express God by refusing activity and works. By going to meetings and talking in the highest lexicon of spiritual phrases (if you say it better it is better). By laying claim to better propositions and a better name for your assembly.

No. We express God in our living. In our walk. In our poor efforts to "reckon ourselves dead." To act — even to act and fall short — is better than nothing. Failure to act is the only real problem. And meetings are nothing. Your quiet time is nothing. There is no image of God in either of those. They may be important to your success at expressing, but without the doing, there is no expression. If the Christian life was a Jedi thing, Yoda would be wrong. Trying is everything. If you don't try, you will never do. Failing (in our own eyes) at any level is not evidence you shouldn't have tried. It is evidence that God is working in you because you have the will to try. Set your mind on the Spirit (not your spirit, whatever that would mean) and walk according to that Spirit.

So expressing God is very important. And that requires that we fear God and turn from evil. And a lot of other things Lee dismissed in his various either/or false dichotomies.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

And this one particular example — fear God and turn away from evil v express God — is a false dichotomy. I would suggest that in making this one statement, he has effectively insinuated that any other thinking or activity is "negative." Being righteous is negative, only express God. Trying to love your neighbor is negative, only express God.

But what is it to express God? What is the image of God we were created to express? Seems that righteousness is front and center. And righteousness is an opposite of evil. So turning away from evil must be part of righteousness which is a centerpiece of the image of God. We also see love of God and neighbor, justice (care for widow, orphan, alien), etc., as the commandments. Even the verse saying that "the truth will set you free" is predicated upon obedience, not isolated, stand-alone truth...

So expressing God is very important. And that requires that we fear God and turn from evil. And a lot of other things Lee dismissed in his various either/or false dichotomies.

It's a false dichotomy because it ignores the centerpiece of the Bible: Jesus. In the Lee dichotomy, we're either feeble sinners, wallowing in sin or vainly trying to be good, or else we're "enjoying the processed Triune God on the local ground by the exercise of our regenerated human spirit". Or some such hifalutin verbiage. So to Lee fearing God belongs to the first realm, and expressing God is in the second.

He created these fake arbitrary bins, and shoveled everything into one or the other. In the first was Christianity, waiting to die and go to heaven, trying to be good, religion, concepts, opinions. In the second was all the supposedly divine and mystical stuff he and Nee had uncovered and restored.

But Lee misses the King: Jesus Christ is consistently presented as in continual obedience and expression. Jesus feared no man - neither Herod nor Pilate nor Ananias. No Roman soldier cowed him. Jesus only lived in reverential awe of the Father. His 'food' was to do the will of the Father (not, ahem, to shout repetitively).

Jesus was the Obedient Lamb of God, and we the disobedient see him, repent, confess, and live. Only through his obedience do we find our path, our Way. But Lee missed all this in his push for subjective experience, so-called enjoyment, and so-called expression. Yet I contend that when one sees Jesus, there is found the Fear of God personified, the Expression [Logos] of the Father made utterly full. To me, there's nothing else to see. When you see Jesus, you effectively see the Father. You see Home.

When they saw this glory they fell down, non-functional. The three disciples on the holy mountain, and later John alone on Patmos realized this awful singularity. Yet it was not their falling down that they remembered, most. It was the glory.

"And we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father" ~John 1:14
"For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we ourselves heard this voice from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. We also have the word of the prophets as confirmed beyond doubt. And you'll do well to pay attention to it.." ~ 2 Peter 1:17-19