Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers"

[aron]

Here is a discussion I recently ran across of the "overcomers" vs. the "thousand years of darkness". The writer appears to be a former member of the local churches of Witness Lee. Full text, as "Topic 12", found at

http://www.controversialchristiantopics.com

All Christians have the light that the Passover is a type of Christ dying as our sacrifice - that we are justified by faith in the blood of Jesus and not by any meritorious works of our own. If one doesn't believe this, he cannot be a Christian. That is the beginning of the Christian life. But what about the end of the Christian life, the inheritance? There arose a teaching in the middle of the nineteenth century that agreed with the beginning of our walk -that we are justified by faith alone, apart from works. But the end of our walk, the kingdom, our inheritance, must be earned by fulfilling certain obligations. And only a better class of Christians, the "overcomers", would actually enter into the inheritance. The noted scholar, G.H. Pember taught this in the most unequivocal language. Robert Govett, another eminent scholar, also taught it, acknowledging his debt to Pember. Jesse Penn-Lewis passed it on in her Overcomer magazine, to which M.E. Barber subscribed, and taught it to Watchman Nee. He mixed it with his teaching about the three circles and transformation (which he also received through the Overcomer, from Mary McDonough, of Brookline MA). And in that form it passed to us through Witness Lee. In the spring of 1973 Witness gave a history of our movement, citing rapture by maturity and the kingdom as a reward for maturity, as having been seen by Bro.Nee in the mid to late 1920's, "..through the help of so many spiritual giants". It is a matter of fact that the Local Church Movement is, in a large part, based upon this teaching...

It should not surprise anyone then, that a devout Christian viewing the Christian profession with not only its outright unbelief in God's word and its idolatry, but also its carelessness, indifference, and worldliness - should think it might be a good idea to come up with a teaching which would scare us back to reality. I can remember Witness lecturing us that 'God in His wisdom' knew that many Christians would not be faithful, not be diligent, and He therefore decided to give the kingdom as a reward for maturity, and the "outer darkness" as a threat to the "lazy" Christians. But he assured us that even the lazy Christians, because they had believed the gospel, would, after the Kingdom, be allowed entrance into the eternal state, the New Jerusalem. How assured did that make you feel?

We had the unique experience, possibly the singularly unique experience in the twentieth century, of seeing the results on a large scale of this kind of reward & punishment system woven back, or should I say, "added", into the New Covenant. Our whole movement was based upon the teaching started by Pember a century earlier. Only we were reminded that it was not simply righteousness which was required. We also had to "buy the oil", "gain Christ", "love not our soul-lives", and "ripen" before the Lord returns. Or else! This was the subject of many of our meetings and much of our fellowship.

How well did it work among the many hundreds of devotees who threw themselves with all their hearts and souls into this teaching? Do you remember the trail of human wreckage, the weepings, the public outbursts of humiliation, the mental breakdowns? Do you remember also the heartless Phariseeism? Remember how many (so very many!) fell away, not because of worldliness or lukewarmness, but because they just couldn't stand the condemnation, the dread, the sense of perpetual defect, of not measuring up? My own dear wife fell away out of discouragement turned into bitterness.

How well did it work? I witnessed the believers in our group fall into three categories:

1. Pharisees. This type compares himself, not against the Bible, but against the others he meets with and, seeing his superior advances, thinks, "I'm doing OK." He has the false peace derived from resting on a false standard. There weren't too many of these, but they usually became leaders who presumed to teach others.

2. Breast beaters (Lk.18:13). These were the most sincere and the most condemned. They were sometimes able to get a little peace through self-flagellation: "I revile myself, Lord!" Ever confessing, ever praying, "Lord, make me more for you!" And thereby gaining a temporary peace through such continual reconsecrations. But this is not real peace, because it is not based on the whole truth. The state of one's heart and his/her spiritual progress become the object, and not Christ. There can be no peace in that.

3. Unconscious Unbelievers. Paul teaches us we must be "holding faith and a good conscience" in balance. If one drops, the other must drop also. Many Local Churchers unconsciously lowered the standard of what they believed was expected of them, in order to keep from having a continually condemned conscience. Without actually facing it, they would develop a creeping unbelief, after so many failures: "He doesn't really expect me to do and be all these things". This does bring relief from condemnation. Only it is not really peace, but slumber. The great majority of all believers stop struggling and slide into this pitfall. Most of the older Local Churchers have lapsed into this category.

Brother, you and I should be the last people to be preaching to our brothers and sisters that they must buy the oil and ripen or else they will be left to endure the Tribulation along with the unbelievers. We have seen firsthand the disastrous effect upon the faith of sincere believers and the puffing up of the more self-vindicating minded believers. Remember how superior we felt to the "cotton candy Christians"? How we talked of how precious Witness' message pamphlets would be to the poor Fundamentalists during the Tribulation? If you are not preaching about the verses I have quoted concerning the kingdom as a promise, and others like it, such as:" Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom"; if you are not giving these equal time along with your warnings, your ministry will be stilted. "The legs of the lame are not equal".

Please allow me this poor example, which I have used to help believers through the difficulties we all experience reconciling grace and responsibility:
A. The train is leaving at 3:00PM. If you do not do what is necessary to be at the station on time YOU WILL BE LEFT BEHIND.
B. Your heavenly Father loves you and has predestined you to have a seat on the train before the world's foundation. And He WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE YOU ARRIVE THERE.

As the hour approaches and one believer sees he is not yet ready, he begins to fear and to think, "I do not find in myself the resources to be ready on time; I fear I will be left behind!" The Father answers, "Do not fear; your heart and spirit are right. Leave the details to me. I will get you there; and you will glorify me for it. Remember my promise".

Another believer sees the hour approaching and is at least dimly aware that he is not at all ready. When questioned about it, he remarks that these things are in God's hands and reminds us of the divine promises. To this one the Holy Spirit must come and remind him of the divine warnings, "If you don't prepare yourself now you will be left behind. That is also a divine promise!"

I hope this example will not be too simple.... But on more than one occasion Paul wrote of speaking "humanly because of the weakness of your flesh". It doesn't take a genius to see, at least in the train station analogy, the disastrous effect of telling people only one side. We really do need both sides of the truth maintained because of our weakness. A ministry which majors on the promises of God, skirting away from the warnings, which seem to contradict them, will not produce any exercise. And where there is no exercise, there is no progress. This has happened to much of Fundamentalism. A ministry which majors on the warnings, skirting away from the promises because it is believed we have heard too much of them, will bleed out all the believers' confidence. And confidence is the one thing we must have for continuance. And continuance is the only true mark, as Hebrews emphasizes, which proves that we do have faith. This has happened in groups such as the Local Church and some of the Pentecostal churches, which teach that one can lose his salvation.

Mr. Anderson seems to lean a little too close to Calvinistic "predestination" for my taste, but still he is erudite and passionate enough to listen to. My beef with his logic, which uses the Book of Hebrews' exposition on the Israelites who "fell because of unbelief" in the wilderness, is this: according to his logic Moses is an unbeliever, cast aside for his unbelief. But we see Moses on the mountaintop with Jesus in the NT gospels.

It seems clear to me from the OT text that Moses' death on Pisgah, overlooking the Good Land, was significantly not in Egypt or in some way station. Anderson seems to overlook this distinction. I cannot.

But at the same time I cannot dismiss his writings on God's promises: "What I have said I will do, I will do." I as a failed human being sense that we both have free will to obey, and that with our free choice we may "lean on the everlasting arms."

However, it's not a subject which I feel that I can treat with any sophistication. And although I can't buy Anderson's arguments whole cloth, his warnings on the possible effects of the "overcomer" teachings are sobering. I think it's a very difficult subject, and I appreciate his efforts on this regard. The whole "free will/predestination" discussion seems to have been going on, often heatedly, for centuries. I had felt that the Nee/Lee school found a fairly tenable middle ground.

Thoughts, anyone?