Network Norwich and Norfolk

[aron]

http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/

Some time ago I got into a discussion with the Liites about "Is Jesus the Father" on a British website.

Go to the "Forum" section, and see the "Guestbook" part, and you will see the thread. Their modus was to try to crush me with volume, but you notice they really couldn't think for themselves. They just wanted to cite Lee. The idea that I could question and critique Lee as Lee did to others made them very uncomfortable.

There were a bunch of threads but the moderator erased them all, because it got pretty vitriolic. They really weren't very "Christian" once they realized that I was and ex-Liite who had deserted the cause.

But it was pretty eye-opening for me, for sure. Enjoy.

[aron]

The starting point of the thread was Isaiah 9:6. The Son is called the Father, therefore the Son is the Father.

My reply was that if you use Lee's logic elsewhere in the scripture, the logic falls apart. So they restrict the interpretive template to their "special" verses, and trust that when they cover other verses, and use other interpretive guides, then you will forget what they did with the first. When I pointed out to them the failure of Lee's revelation (i.e. logic) to carry over to other parts of scripture, they suggested that I go back and prayerfully re-read Lee's writings. Basically they won't acknowlege what you say.

So you have certain interpretive rules being applied to give meaning to certain verses. But those same rules are not used elsewhere. The impression is that they don't really care for consistency, for rules, for scripture. They only care for promoting their theology. And the basis of the theology is not on any inherent consistency, but that it was promulgated by "the prophet", Witness Lee. And to question Lee is to question God's anointed servant. So you just prayerfully read Lee's writings until you "get it".

But I found that if I prayerfully read the Bible, then Lee's thought constructions fall apart. To be called by a name doesn't mean that you are that thing. The Roman Centurion in Luke 7 was called by Caesar's name, and was "also a man under authority". But the Centurion wasn't actually Caesar. And in the Book of Revelation Jesus promised to write upon the overcomer His new name. That doesn't mean that the overcomer is Jesus. "He will be called by My Name" means identification, ownership, and yes, "oneness". But as I pointed out in the thread, we also are "one" but I am still me and you are still you. We are one, but we are still distinctly identified. "I" and "you" still function.

But they weren't interested. Lee didn't address this, so they had no need to. If Lee didn't talk about it, then it didn't exist. The thrust was to be subservient to Lee's speaking, not to the Bible or God.

[aron]

Further thoughts on Isaiah 9:6...... Exodus 23 has an angel of whom it is said, "My Name is in him." So Moses et al were to listen, and be obedient. But later, in Exodus 32, he is called "My angel", and in Exodus 33 he is called "an angel". So the messenger is probably not Jehovah.

The Lee programme seems to conflate everything into a blender. Why? I don't know. I guess it jives more comfortably with his "dispensing" idea. But the whole idea of pronouns seems to get blurred away. "I" become "you" and "He" becomes "Me" and "the Father" becomes "the Son" etc. Everything becomes blended away into homogenous nothingness. Everything is everything.

For me, the idea of agency rescues us from this sea of grey. The agent bears the sender's name (or Name), but is not to be confused with the sender. The angel told John "don't do that! I am your fellow servant" (Rev 19:10, 22:9). See also Peter in Acts 10:26, and Paul in Acts 14:15. The servant is not to be confused, or conflated, with the Master, even though the servant bears the Master's name, and is "one" with the Master, and is even an extension of the Master's will and authority.

[aron]

I guess my main contention with the Liites wasn't whether or not the Son was the Father, but the idea that Lee alone was able to think. If I tried to use my brain and examine the scriptures and see if in fact things were so, and I found them to be at least possibly otherwise than "the apostle" had claimed, then to the Liites that showed that I was "dark" and "ambitious" and "rebellious" and so forth. Only Lee could come to scripture, and consider, and reason, and postulate. The rest of us were to "prayerfully read" his output and conclude that through His "oracle", God had spoken to us. I find this to be presumptuous, arrogant and elitist.

My thoughts are not superior to those of Lee, nor are they closer to "truth". But they are mine, as Lee's were his.

[aron]

I guess another way to put my problem with the theological presentation of the Liites is that it fronts an idea that I find problematic, even moreso than the question of whether the "persons" of the Godhead can be conflated. Arguments can be made both for Jesus as the Father, and not, and have been, and unfortunately will be continued.

In some sense I allowed myself to weigh in on a subject with no real resolution simply to point out that there are other ways to understand the words of scripture than what "the ministry" has presented us with. This challenges the ministry itself, and not merely its cognitive output. Because the ministry loves to be first. The ministry is the alpha and omega, and once it has pronounced "this equals that" in the holy word, then the matter is supposedly settled. So for little old me or you to question the supposed "last word" on the Bible is taken as an affront to God Himself and the divinely arranged chain of authority.

But I see this supposedly divinely mandated organizational hierarchy as merely the latest example of "Diotrephes loves to be first." Remember when all the disciples were arguing over which of them were greatest? If Jesus had not intervened, surely it would have either resolved into one Alpha Dog and the rest being subservient, or it would have broken them up into factions. Jesus stopped it quick, and would also have us do that here, so I think. Anyone who insists on the last word in the ongoing conversation is revealing their source, and it isn't God.

So I simply put my opinion against that of Lee, to counter "the ministry" on the Network Norwich and Norfolk website, not because I felt my premises to be inherently superior to those of Lee, but to say, "Not so fast." There are other possibilities besides his conclusion.

And I would ask, Why would we buy into such a system? Obviously we know Lee's motive: "Diotrephes loves to be first". But why would we allow Diotrephes to dominate the assembly? I think for 2 reasons. First because it relieves us the hard chore of thinking for ourselves. Lee has spoken and that is it. Easy. Comfortable. No uncertainty. God has spoken through His oracle. Secondly, those with ambition now have a pathway. So sycophants and lackeys and yes-men now have a center, and a focus for themselves. Ironic that the ones who most loudly and repeatedly castigated the "ambition" of people like MR now are the spokesmen of the system. But not really shocking when you think about how the system is set up.

[OBW]

I have probably mentioned it here on this forum recently, but when I realized that Jesus prayed that we would be one as he was one with the Father, that is a fundamentally different oneness than anything that Lee taught. If we humans can be one in the way that the Father and Son are one, then there is no way that the Father and the Son are simply the same "person."

In fact, it looks more like evidence that the version of the Trinity that Lee called almost tritheistic is probably more correct than his brand of oneness theology.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have probably mentioned it here on this forum recently, but when I realized that Jesus prayed that we would be one as he was one with the Father, that is a fundamentally different oneness than anything that Lee taught. If we humans can be one in the way that the Father and Son are one, then there is no way that the Father and the Son are simply the same "person."

In fact, it looks more like evidence that the version of the Trinity that Lee called almost tritheistic is probably more correct than his brand of oneness theology.

The thing which bothered me about the Lee teaching was that he'd use one interpretive rule to tout his conclusion, then abandon that rule elsewhere. Notably, "I and the Father are one" was considered to be a major proof text of his idea that Jesus was and is the Father. Yet as OBW shows above, that same usage of "being one" doesn't logically hold up elsewhere, unless you attempt to conflate other objects which clearly are not the same in our understandings.

So Lee would simply forget about the interpretive rule where it wasn't convenient to his argument, which led to the conclusion that he wasn't particularly interested in cutting straight the Word. When I pointed out the logical inconsistencies of his propositions on the Network Norwich and Norfolk Guest Forum, his promoters simply ignored my statements and either presented me with new and voluminous arguments for Lee's conclusion, or asked me to slowly and carefully reread what they'd already posted.

Someone who earnestly wants you to consider their ideas, without themselves even briefly considering any others, probably isn't someone to have a fruitful discussion with.

[aron]

http://www.affcrit.com/pdfs/2008/01/08_01_a4.pdf

This was linked on the Network Norwich and Norfolk thread about if we can call Jesus "the Father". It is from the 2008 Affirmation and Critique.

While the notion of a singular God, a One and Only, conforms to common perceptions of God, it hinders and even frustrates the economy of God. Even the idea of a merciful and benevolently-inclined God, who is objective and apart from humanity, cannot sufficiently convince humanity that the chasm that exists between an almighty Creator and creature of His own making can be bridged. Even when the barrier of sin is discounted, as it is in some religions, the religiously inclined routinely evidence attitudes of objective obeisance rather than subjective intimacy. When the problem of sin is considered, the religiously inclined then routinely evidence attitudes of fearful deference to a judgmental God and consequently seek to compensate for their failures by good works. All of this is contrary to the revelation in the Bible.

I was struck by the lines "the chasm between an almighty Creator and creature", and "A God who is objective and apart from humanity". These issues are fully resolved in the Bible, in the person of Jesus Christ. How does Lee's "Jesus is the Father" do a better job of bridging humanity and divinity? By conflating them? Isn't Jesus Himself clearly the bridge between humanity and divinity? Does Lee's new understanding of the Trinity bring us deeper, resolve unsolved problems or somehow make things more clear?

Jesus the human Son of God is clearly in "subjective intimacy" with the Creator Father God, whom He refers to continually and does miraculous works which show His connection to the Divine Sending Will. There is no separation; none. I can only conclude that Lee created a "tritheistic" argument as a foil for his own. "Some of us are unconsciously heretical" he would tell us. Then he gave his solution: "Jesus is the Father".

Secondly, this Son of Man on Earth who was fully one with the Father in Heaven is depicted in detail in the "intimate" writings of the Old Testament Psalmist, among other places. Lee dismissed most of that corpus as the musings of a self-righteous sinner. The obedient, hopeful humanity of Jesus, which is our bridge to the Holy Spirit as much as His sacrificial death, is discounted because somehow Lee couldn't fit it into his "dispensing" metric. So much the worse for his argument, which is already on unsteady ground.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

While the notion of a singular God, a One and Only, conforms to common perceptions of God, it hinders and even frustrates the economy of God. Even the idea of a merciful and benevolently-inclined God, who is objective and apart from humanity, cannot sufficiently convince humanity that the chasm that exists between an almighty Creator and creature of His own making can be bridged. Even when the barrier of sin is discounted, as it is in some religions, the religiously inclined routinely evidence attitudes of objective obeisance rather than subjective intimacy. When the problem of sin is considered, the religiously inclined then routinely evidence attitudes of fearful deference to a judgmental God and consequently seek to compensate for their failures by good works. All of this is contrary to the revelation in the Bible.

I was struck by the lines "the chasm between an almighty Creator and creature", and "A God who is objective and apart from humanity". These issues are fully resolved in the Bible, in the person of Jesus Christ. How does Lee's "Jesus is the Father" do a better job of bridging humanity and divinity? By conflating them? Isn't Jesus Himself clearly the bridge between humanity and divinity? Does Lee's new understanding of the Trinity bring us deeper, resolve unsolved problems or somehow make things more clear?

Jesus the human Son of God is clearly in "subjective intimacy" with the Creator Father God, whom He refers to continually and does miraculous works which show His connection to the Divine Sending Will. There is no separation; none. I can only conclude that Lee created a "tritheistic" argument as a foil for his own. "Some of us are unconsciously heretical" he would tell us. Then he gave his solution: "Jesus is the Father".

Secondly, this Son of Man on Earth who was fully one with the Father in Heaven is depicted in detail in the "intimate" writings of the Old Testament Psalmist, among other places. Lee dismissed most of that corpus as the musings of a self-righteous sinner. The obedient, hopeful humanity of Jesus, which is our bridge to the Holy Spirit as much as His sacrificial death, is discounted because somehow Lee couldn't fit it into his "dispensing" metric. So much the worse for his argument, which is already on unsteady ground.

Lee definitely developed some peculiar theology along the way. Growing up in the LC, I never caught on to this, and I didn't understand that the LC held a view of the Trinity that would be considered unorthodox. My first exposure to their teaching on the Trinity was when I was asked to teach lessons in a "summer school of truth" for the young people. The topic was the Triune God. IIRC, it seems like the gist of most lessons was using certain verses to blur the distinction between God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit. I remember they used the verse Isaiah 9:6 along with other verses to attempt to say that the Son is the Father, thus blurring the distinction between the Father and the Son. I do admit this bothered me a little bit. If the Bible makes the distinction between the Father and the Son (such as Jesus praying to the Father), then why is the LC so uncomfortable with that?

Of course, Lee summarized the essence of his views quite well by saying: "The traditional explanation of the Trinity is grossly inadequate and borders on tritheism". In my mind, calling an orthodox view "grossly inadequate" was essentially admitting that he held an unorthodox view. What more needs to be said? CRI has tried to rationalize statements like this, but I am unconvinced. Having been put in the position where I had to teach these things to the young people, I realized how fuzzy the LC teaching is.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lee definitely developed some peculiar theology along the way. Growing up in the LC, I never caught on to this, and I didn't understand that the LC held a view of the Trinity that would be considered unorthodox. My first exposure to their teaching on the Trinity was when I was asked to teach lessons in a "summer school of truth" for the young people. The topic was the Triune God. IIRC, it seems like the gist of most lessons was using certain verses to blur the distinction between God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit. I remember they used the verse Isaiah 9:6 along with other verses to attempt to say that the Son is the Father, thus blurring the distinction between the Father and the Son. I do admit this bothered me a little bit. If the Bible makes the distinction between the Father and the Son (such as Jesus praying to the Father), then why is the LC so uncomfortable with that?

Of course, Lee summarized the essence of his views quite well by saying: "The traditional explanation of the Trinity is grossly inadequate and borders on tritheism". In my mind, calling an orthodox view "grossly inadequate" was essentially admitting that he held an unorthodox view. What more needs to be said? CRI has tried to rationalize statements like this, but I am unconvinced. Having been put in the position where I had to teach these things to the young people, I realized how fuzzy the LC teaching is.

It is a little disconcerting to discover that what you thought was true is so questionable that an armchair theologian like most of us can see the gaping holes in the reasoning. But more disconcerting that we simply bought it as true for a long time.

You have said something in a different way that I have latched onto recently. The Bible spends too much ink talking about the Father, Son, and Spirit separately, even within single passages, and even by what Lee would call "the Apostle of the age" for that time (Paul), to intend that we turn them into "just the same person" or "simply" each other. Seems that Lee is selling a spiritual smoothie. You know, the kind that looses all identity of color and taste. Turns a medium greenish/brownish grey and all the ingredient tastes are lost into something that you are not sure you really want to drink. But instead of tasting it carefully with our noses pinched shut, we gulped it down as others cheered us on. Sort of like a drinking challenge at a fraternity kegger. (at least as portrayed in the movies)

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is a little disconcerting to discover that what you thought was true is so questionable that an armchair theologian like most of us can see the gaping holes in the reasoning. But more disconcerting that we simply bought it as true for a long time.

... The Bible spends too much ink talking about the Father, Son, and Spirit separately, even within single passages, and even by what Lee would call "the Apostle of the age" for that time (Paul), to intend that we turn them into "just the same person" or "simply" each other. Seems that Lee is selling a spiritual smoothie. You know, the kind that looses all identity of color and taste...

The Bible also uses pronouns the way we are used to seeing them, and this would effectively need to be effaced. "He" and "me" typically signal distinctions, no? "I have set My Spirit upon Him" in Isaiah 42:1 and Matthew 12:18 suddenly becomes confused, to me. Who is "I" and who is "Him"? Do these words and passages suddenly become meaningless? Or is there some special hidden meaning that Lee's decoder ring theology liberates? I simply can't see it.

It is hard, for me, to take Lee's explanations very far through the text of the Bible without either the text or the explanation falling apart. Looking back, it seems that the survival of his thought world within us depended largely upon uncritical acceptance, and having a short memory. If Lee selectively used interpretive rules in certain verses, we needed to do the same thing, to stay with his ideas and allow them to retain their hold within our consciousness.

1. Keep endlessly rehearsing key verses and phrases to hold everything together.
2. Ignore all those troubling bits that don't fit.

How was it put to us -- "Be simple! Don't be hardened! Drop your concepts, and eat the tree!" It's like we were glorying in our naivete. What a con job.

[Freedom]

It's interesting that this subject came up, because over the past week or so, this has been something I have spend a lot of time considering. In light of the celebration of the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ, I really couldn't help but to consider this. My concern is not so much how right or wrong LC theology is, but that it has resulted in me not having a proper understanding and appreciation of God. When I was at a Christmas gathering, the person who lead us in prayer(a non-LC Christian) opened by saying something like: "Father, we thank you for your son Jesus Christ..." This caught my attention, because it is not the common way I am used to hearing prayers, and about the only time I hear any prayers in the LC addressed to the Father specifically is during the end of the Lord's table meeting when we sing a song to the Father.


Most prayers I hear in the LC start something like: "Oh Lord Jesus! ...." To someone who has been in the LC their whole life, that probably doesn't sound unusual, but the more I think about it, the more I feel like it is not clear who the prayer is being addressed to. Jesus set an example by praying to the Father, so I don't know why the LC feels so uncomfortable about this. It almost feels like the only time it would be acceptable for someone to pray like this is during the end of a Lord's table meeting as I mentioned. I can almost guarantee that if I opened a prayer by saying "Father ...", people would feel unconformable and maybe claim that I was being too "religious". For a long time I always wondered why non-LC Christians prayed the way that they do. Now it makes more sense, and I realize it is for good reason. It is not about being "religious" or "traditional", it is about praying according to the examples set forth for us in the Bible. Of course, it is acceptable to address a prayer to the Lord, rather than the Father, and I'm not trying to say one way is better than the other. I just have come to feel that the LC doesn't have the proper appreciation of who God is, which is a direct result of Lee's teachings.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

How was it put to us -- "Be simple! Don't be hardened! Drop your concepts, and eat the tree!" It's like we were glorying in our naivete. What a con job.

But hey, "even if he is wrong ... he's right!

[OBW]

Just looked at the source forum and note that everything seems to have ended back in 2010 or so. But I saw another thread on something like "do you think that belief in evolution is blasphemy to God?" And somewhere in it, one of the guys who were primarily in discussion stopped to chase off the Local Church nut jobs trying to take over his thread.

As for his topic, I can honestly say that I do not think that belief in evolution is blasphemy. My understanding of blasphemy is to attribute something to God in such a manner that it misrepresents Him and denigrates Him. So thinking that evolution is true does not seem to arrive at that level.

But beyond that, even if it could be a valid assessment, I would disagree with the statement because I see nothing in the first books of Genesis that defines how man and the other life on this planet came to be. Only that God "did it." While Genesis says that God made it all, it also says that God said "let the land produce" with respect to both the plant life and the animal life. So did the land do it, or did God?

I really don't care in detail. But in broad terms, it is clear that the beginning was not some cosmic bang. Something did not come from nothing without something else being there to plan, direct, and execute.

If the steps from the beginning of the creation to the fact of mankind as we know it was simply a few days of God's effort, or a protracted development as ordained when he spoke for it to happen (like through some kind of evolution), I can't get excited about it. God still did it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

My concern is not so much how right or wrong LC theology is, but that it has resulted in me not having a proper understanding and appreciation of God. When I was at a Christmas gathering, the person who lead us in prayer(a non-LC Christian) opened by saying something like: "Father, we thank you for your son Jesus Christ..." This caught my attention, because it is not the common way I am used to hearing prayers, and about the only time I hear any prayers in the LC addressed to the Father specifically is during the end of the Lord's table meeting when we sing a song to the Father..

I think we can pray to the Lord Jesus, or to the Father. Probably there is wide variation, if you would go and meet with a number of Christians. And I think this is okay with God, as long as we attempt to respect the faith of others, and our heart is sincere.

Originally Posted by Freedom

MyMost prayers I hear in the LC start something like: "Oh Lord Jesus! ...." To someone who has been in the LC their whole life, that probably doesn't sound unusual, but the more I think about it, the more I feel like it is not clear who the prayer is being addressed to. Jesus set an example by praying to the Father, so I don't know why the LC feels so uncomfortable about this.

Four pictures in the Bible kind of dominate my view, and seem to color my wording. The first is what you mentioned. When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray, He began, "Our Father in heaven..."

The second is in Luke 22 where He told Peter that Satan had asked to sift them all like wheat, but He (Jesus) had interceded and prayed for him (v 32). I see Jesus as the One whose blood speaks forgiveness, not condemnation. So I always imagine Jesus before the Father speaking on our behalfs as He did with Peter. So I pray either to Him and trust Him to bring this to the Father, or I pray to the Father and trust that the Spirit of Jesus Christ Himself will convey that forward. Either way, "none comes to the Father but by Me".

Third is the image of Jesus as the Great High Priest. You see this prominently in the epistle to the Hebrews and also it is suggested (to me) in the scene in Revelations 1 through 3, where Jesus is walking among the assemblies.

Fourth is the "I will sing hymns of praise to You in the midst of the assembly", from Psalm 22, also referenced in Hebrews. Jesus is the One who praises the Father in our assembly. Our focus is on the Father, but our awareness is of Jesus bringing our praises to the Father and bringing the Father's blessings to us. So it is "Christ in us" in the assembly, who rises in admiration and thanks to our Father in heaven.

So I kind of have a composite picture, of two parts: I always see Jesus before the Father's throne, or seated at His right hand. You don't get to the Father without going through Jesus Christ, and our goal in approaching Jesus Christ is to get to our Father in heaven. So to me it's like asking if you use your left leg or right leg to walk. You use both. Or do you exhale or inhale when you breathe. Both! So I pray to the Father, but I focus on Jesus praying to the Father. Praying to the Father without Jesus, or apart from Jesus, is vain.

This is simply my view. I am not trying to define doctrine. I am sure others have different mental pictures. That is why I said that when we gather together to pray and praise and intercede we should be tolerant and respectful of others. To me, there is no "my way or the highway."

[OBW]

I went to look at the UK forum and found some interesting things. And I copied three paragraphs from one of the LRC apologists. They are so Lee-like that someone could probably find where it was virtually lifted from. But I do not have the patience to dig for a needle in a haystack.

The first two are here:

When it comes to the matter of the Triune God, many Christians only care for their tradition, not for the clear, accurate word of the Bible. In order to preserve their tradition, they twist the words of Scripture and will not return absolutely to the pure word of the Bible. Because of this tradition, a fight is going on. Although we do not like to fight, we cannot avoid it. Therefore, we must point out that many Christians hold a concept, which is certainly heretical, of two divine Fathers, two life-giving Spirits, and some, even of three Gods. It may be that they are not aware of this or that they hold it unconsciously and, thus, they may deny that they hold it. However, the concept held by them actually is heretical because it implies two divine Fathers, two life-giving Spirits, and, in some cases, three Gods.

According to the basic revelation of the Bible, God's economy is to work Christ into His believers that they may become a living church to express God on earth. But in Christian history and in today's situation, we do not see this. What we see is merely a Christian religion with the Triune God as their object of worship plus a Savior who saves sinners from hell to heaven. In today's Christianity we see neither the enjoyment of the all-inclusive Christ nor the practice of the proper church life. For this reason, during the past fifty years the Lord has come to show us His recovery of the experience of Christ and of the proper church life. Throughout the years that we have been burdened by the Lord with His recovery, we have been attacked by religion. We have been attacked because we have received a clear vision from the Lord regarding who Christ is. The Lord has shown us that Christ is the all-inclusive, wonderful One. He is all in all. He is God, the Creator, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and also the proper man. He is the reality of all divine attributes and of all human virtues. The hinge of all the aspects of this all-inclusive Christ is the living Spirit. We have no choice except to tell our fellow Christians that our Savior, Jesus Christ, is the living Spirit. Undoubtedly, He is the Lamb of God and the Redeemer, but these are simply two aspects of this all-inclusive One. Christ, the all-inclusive One, is everything. The Bible even describes Him with the term "all in all" (Col. 3:11). Christ is the reality of every positive thing. He is light, life, righteousness, holiness, redemption, salvation, and everything. In our experience, He is the life-giving Spirit indwelling our human spirit. Because we proclaim this, we are accused of being heretical. Our critics say that we teach heresy in telling people that Christ, the Son, is the Father as well as the Spirit. Today, many Christians do not believe that Christ is not only the Son, but also the Father and the Spirit.

A lot of declarations and assertions about what other say and believe, but no evidence that they do. And a lot of claims about what is true, but nothing to establish it as so. All reminiscent of my first forays back into Lee’s books in about 2007.

It started with the one I keep harping on — The Economy of God. The opening chapter is the cornerstone of the whole book. Without its “truth,” there is no basis for the rest. And it does make vague reference to the opening verses in 1 Timothy, specifically verses 3 and 4. But Lee never really refers to them, or to their context. He just spins a yarn to make what he has to say true, then moves on.

I note that the NIV provides these two verses in this manner:

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.

First, the “which is by faith” is never mentioned in Lee’s discussions. But I note that this alternate translation has what I believe is the better view of what the whole thing is about. “Advancing God’s work” is a much better translation of the meaning of what Paul wrote in this passage. He is pointing to the outcome of teaching false doctrines, myths and endless genealogies — controversial speculations. This outcome is juxtaposed with the outcome of correct teachings — the advancement of God’s work. That is squarely within the meaning of “economy.”

And Paul did not say to teach it, but rather that it would happen if the correct things are taught.

But this is not about “God’s economy,” but Lee’s view of the Trinity.

“[M]any Christians only care for their tradition, not for the clear, accurate word of the Bible.”

What clear, accurate word of the Bible? There is none supplied. None is brought to point to any error. And there is no evidence that what other Christians are caring for is only “their tradition.” Just the bare assertion that it is so.

“In order to preserve their tradition, they twist the words of Scripture and will not return absolutely to the pure word of the Bible.”

Ok. I’ll bite. Please provide some pure words from the Bible. And also show where others twist the words of scripture. But there is no such effort. And since no one asked that question all those years ago, there is simply silence.

“Therefore, we must point out that many Christians hold a concept, which is certainly heretical, of two divine Fathers, two life-giving Spirits, and some, even of three Gods.”

Really? Heretical? Yes, the things you point to would be heretical. (In the case of “two life-giving Spirits, only because the insistence on capitalizing “Spirit” indicates the Holy Spirit, a name for one of the Godhead. But “spirit” is appropriately applied to all three, which, BTW, can all “give life.”) But where is the evidence that this is what is believed or taught? It doesn’t exist. It is a hollow charge. A picture of the way things would be if the writer could have his way. But he cannot. And he cannot make things be that are not. And even if they are, he needs to show where and how he is correct. But since he does not, I can only assume that it is a fantasy. In any case, for all his bravado, he has failed to engage in an actual discussion of real issues, and instead created issues that he did not link to anything other than his claim that they exist.

A strawman argument.

“According to the basic revelation of the Bible, God's economy is to work Christ into His believers that they may become a living church to express God on earth.”

Really? How do you arrive at this as the “basic revelation of the Bible? What makes it so? Nothing supplied. I can’t think of what it is. Crickets chirping. (Actually, this sounds like a backdoor to the God’s economy argument.)

“What we see is merely a Christian religion with the Triune God as their object of worship plus a Savior who saves sinners from hell to heaven.”

True — in part. But that part is not denied by the LRC. What is missing is an analysis of the whole. What is the whole of their teaching and belief? What is the whole of their object of worship? What else is taught besides “elevator” or “in v out” salvation? A whole lot.

And they quibble about terms rather than substance. While not made in full here, the snip at “from hell to heaven” includes a jab at the whole notion of “heaven.” They (the LRC) believe in something more robust and spiritual than just “going to heaven” so they assume that everyone else is just about getting into heaven to walk on gold and live in a big mansion. It just isn’t so. And they (most of everyone else) believes that how this life is lived is important though not salvic. In other words, they believe in sanctification (even if not stated in the same terms) that is beyond salvation.

“In today's Christianity we see neither the enjoyment of the all-inclusive Christ nor the practice of the proper church life. For this reason, during the past fifty years the Lord has come to show us His recovery of the experience of Christ and of the proper church life. Throughout the years that we have been burdened by the Lord with His recovery, we have been attacked by religion. We have been attacked because we have received a clear vision from the Lord regarding who Christ is. The Lord has shown us that Christ is the all-inclusive, wonderful One. He is all in all. He is God, the Creator, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and also the proper man. He is the reality of all divine attributes and of all human virtues. The hinge of all the aspects of this all-inclusive Christ is the living Spirit. We have no choice except to tell our fellow Christians that our Savior, Jesus Christ, is the living Spirit. Undoubtedly, He is the Lamb of God and the Redeemer, but these are simply two aspects of this all-inclusive One. Christ, the all-inclusive One, is everything.”

Wow! A lot of statements about who God is. And none of it is a mystery to the rest of Christianity. Just spoken of in different terms. (Of course it starts by claiming that Christianity doesn't beleive or understand any of it. A lie.) And for the claim of being attacked for this, the only thing I can say is that when you assert that you know something others don’t by saying what they already know in different terms, you are an idiot. And you are asking for rejection. When you say that their teachings are wrong because yours have better terms, you create a fictional difference. But if you resist linking those new terms to the old terms, you create the differentiation and beg to be rejected.

“The Bible even describes Him with the term "all in all" (Col. 3:11).”

Finally! A verse! But what does it do for the discussion? Nothing. It is a great verse, but totally irrelevant to the discussion.

In fact, at this point, while the discussion is whether the Son is also the Father, there has been a lot of haggling over vague, spiritual-sounding things that have nothing to do with the topic. And only one irrelevant verse. Instead, a lot of baseless claims that would be characterized by the LRC as libelous if the tables were turned.

I now skip a couple of sentences and get to the final quoted sentence:

“Today, many Christians do not believe that Christ is not only the Son, but also the Father and the Spirit.”

If the topic is heresy, then the heresy is to assert that any Christians should believe what is stated here. In fact the kind of identity of Christ with the Father is laughable when you consider that Jesus prayed that we, the human Christians, would be one as the Father and Son are one. If they are literally the same, then Jesus prayed an impossibility. And don’t point at any considerations of the life to come because the oneness of the true followers is the reason that others will believe, therefore it cannot be put off until the New J.

The last paragraph (which I did not quote) is a defense against the claims that the LRC teaches a form of modalism. Other than declaring their allegiance to the verses where Jesus comes up from his baptism, there is nothing that furthers the claim that the Son is simply the Father and the Spirit.

[aron]

OBW: First, the “which is by faith” is never mentioned in Lee’s discussions. But I note that this alternate translation has what I believe is the better view of what the whole thing is about. “Advancing God’s work” is a much better translation of the meaning of what Paul wrote in this passage. He is pointing to the outcome of teaching false doctrines, myths and endless genealogies — controversial speculations. This outcome is juxtaposed with the outcome of correct teachings — the advancement of God’s work. That is squarely within the meaning of “economy.”

I noted the same thing, that Lee's entire corpus was a mass of assertions with really little or nothing behind it, or underneath it, as the case may be. Just confident assertions. Kind of like a confidence game, I suppose.

When I challenged it in my own feeble way I was met with: A) I was a jealous deserter who left the cause because my selfish ambitions were thwarted; B) an appeal to carefully and prayerfully re-read the voluminous quotes. But really no attempt to address my objections, or alternative explanations. So I concluded there was really nothing there; just one man's confidence. Amazing how far he took it.

(As an aside, I saw the words "controversial speculation" in the NIV translation of 1 Timothy and re-considered some of my own writings of late, re: the presentation in scripture of the unique Holy Spirit overlapping with plural, ministering spirits, i.e. angels. Glad to see that cautionary point from Paul in its NIV translation. Duly noted.)

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

I noted the same thing, that Lee's entire corpus was a mass of assertions with really little or nothing behind it, or underneath it, as the case may be. Just confident assertions. Kind of like a confidence game, I suppose.

When I challenged it in my own feeble way I was met with: A) I was a jealous deserter who left the cause because my selfish ambitions were thwarted; B) an appeal to carefully and prayerfully re-read the voluminous quotes. But really no attempt to address my objections, or alternative explanations. So I concluded there was really nothing there; just one man's confidence. Amazing how far he took it.

(As an aside, I saw the words "controversial speculation" in the NIV translation of 1 Timothy and re-considered some of my own writings of late, re: the presentation in scripture of the unique Holy Spirit overlapping with plural, ministering spirits, i.e. angels. Glad to see that cautionary point from Paul in its NIV translation. Duly noted.)

It has been my experience that the LC is utterly lacking when it comes to apologetics. Yes, they will tell you what verses support all their teachings, but that is it. There have been many times I was put in a position where I have had to try and clarify or defend a LC doctrine to an outsider, and in most cases, I totally failed. Why? I think it has to do a lot with not knowing the reasoning behind certain teachings. I know all the verses that supposedly "prove" their teachings, but in the real world, people can easily find the flaws or holes in Lee's logic.

In most cases, when someone starts questioning things too much, the typical response is to either end the conversation or try to skirt the issue. I have never seen any interest in debating people or examining certain teachings according to the scriptures. The LC does have their Affirmation and Critique journal, but even that appears to be rather one-sided, because it becomes quickly evident that they aren't open for dialogue with anyone who doesn't agree with them. Just the other day I was reading through Norm Geisler's writings on the CRI's defense of the LC, and I came across a letter Norm wrote to Ron Kangas. Here is an excerpt:

He used my name (Norm) in his article “The Economy of God: the Triune God in His Operation” in the LC Journal called, Affirmation and Critique: A Journal of Christian Thought. So, I assumed (wrongly) that he was open to dialogue. Had he answered my questions, he could have clarified LC views. Not answering them leaves a shadow over their position.
...
http://www.normgeisler.com/articles/...ocalChurch.htm

I think that letter summarizes the issue very well.

[awareness]

Mike, I saw this kind of parroting of Lee some 15 to 20 yrs ago on a local church yahoo group. I eventually concluded the possibility of these kinds of posts being generated by a computer algorithm, drawing from Witness Lee writings and speakings. So you might not be reading a post by a real person. It might just be coming from a machine. If not, it may as well be. It's just a regurgitation ... ad nauseam.

Ha.

Originally Posted by OBW

I went to look at the UK forum and found some interesting things. And I copied three paragraphs from one of the LRC apologists. They are so Lee-like that someone could probably find where it was virtually lifted from. But I do not have the patience to dig for a needle in a haystack.

The first two are here:
A lot of declarations and assertions about what other say and believe, but no evidence that they do. And a lot of claims about what is true, but nothing to establish it as so. All reminiscent of my first forays back into Lee’s books in about 2007.

It started with the one I keep harping on — The Economy of God. The opening chapter is the cornerstone of the whole book. Without its “truth,” there is no basis for the rest. And it does make vague reference to the opening verses in 1 Timothy, specifically verses 3 and 4. But Lee never really refers to them, or to their context. He just spins a yarn to make what he has to say true, then moves on.

I note that the NIV provides these two verses in this manner:
First, the “which is by faith” is never mentioned in Lee’s discussions. But I note that this alternate translation has what I believe is the better view of what the whole thing is about. “Advancing God’s work” is a much better translation of the meaning of what Paul wrote in this passage. He is pointing to the outcome of teaching false doctrines, myths and endless genealogies — controversial speculations. This outcome is juxtaposed with the outcome of correct teachings — the advancement of God’s work. That is squarely within the meaning of “economy.”

And Paul did not say to teach it, but rather that it would happen if the correct things are taught.

But this is not about “God’s economy,” but Lee’s view of the Trinity.

“[M]any Christians only care for their tradition, not for the clear, accurate word of the Bible.”

What clear, accurate word of the Bible? There is none supplied. None is brought to point to any error. And there is no evidence that what other Christians are caring for is only “their tradition.” Just the bare assertion that it is so.

“In order to preserve their tradition, they twist the words of Scripture and will not return absolutely to the pure word of the Bible.”

Ok. I’ll bite. Please provide some pure words from the Bible. And also show where others twist the words of scripture. But there is no such effort. And since no one asked that question all those years ago, there is simply silence.

“Therefore, we must point out that many Christians hold a concept, which is certainly heretical, of two divine Fathers, two life-giving Spirits, and some, even of three Gods.”

Really? Heretical? Yes, the things you point to would be heretical. (In the case of “two life-giving Spirits, only because the insistence on capitalizing “Spirit” indicates the Holy Spirit, a name for one of the Godhead. But “spirit” is appropriately applied to all three, which, BTW, can all “give life.”) But where is the evidence that this is what is believed or taught? It doesn’t exist. It is a hollow charge. A picture of the way things would be if the writer could have his way. But he cannot. And he cannot make things be that are not. And even if they are, he needs to show where and how he is correct. But since he does not, I can only assume that it is a fantasy. In any case, for all his bravado, he has failed to engage in an actual discussion of real issues, and instead created issues that he did not link to anything other than his claim that they exist.

A strawman argument.

“According to the basic revelation of the Bible, God's economy is to work Christ into His believers that they may become a living church to express God on earth.”

Really? How do you arrive at this as the “basic revelation of the Bible? What makes it so? Nothing supplied. I can’t think of what it is. Crickets chirping. (Actually, this sounds like a backdoor to the God’s economy argument.)

“What we see is merely a Christian religion with the Triune God as their object of worship plus a Savior who saves sinners from hell to heaven.”

True — in part. But that part is not denied by the LRC. What is missing is an analysis of the whole. What is the whole of their teaching and belief? What is the whole of their object of worship? What else is taught besides “elevator” or “in v out” salvation? A whole lot.

And they quibble about terms rather than substance. While not made in full here, the snip at “from hell to heaven” includes a jab at the whole notion of “heaven.” They (the LRC) believe in something more robust and spiritual than just “going to heaven” so they assume that everyone else is just about getting into heaven to walk on gold and live in a big mansion. It just isn’t so. And they (most of everyone else) believes that how this life is lived is important though not salvic. In other words, they believe in sanctification (even if not stated in the same terms) that is beyond salvation.

“In today's Christianity we see neither the enjoyment of the all-inclusive Christ nor the practice of the proper church life. For this reason, during the past fifty years the Lord has come to show us His recovery of the experience of Christ and of the proper church life. Throughout the years that we have been burdened by the Lord with His recovery, we have been attacked by religion. We have been attacked because we have received a clear vision from the Lord regarding who Christ is. The Lord has shown us that Christ is the all-inclusive, wonderful One. He is all in all. He is God, the Creator, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and also the proper man. He is the reality of all divine attributes and of all human virtues. The hinge of all the aspects of this all-inclusive Christ is the living Spirit. We have no choice except to tell our fellow Christians that our Savior, Jesus Christ, is the living Spirit. Undoubtedly, He is the Lamb of God and the Redeemer, but these are simply two aspects of this all-inclusive One. Christ, the all-inclusive One, is everything.”

Wow! A lot of statements about who God is. And none of it is a mystery to the rest of Christianity. Just spoken of in different terms. (Of course it starts by claiming that Christianity doesn't beleive or understand any of it. A lie.) And for the claim of being attacked for this, the only thing I can say is that when you assert that you know something others don’t by saying what they already know in different terms, you are an idiot. And you are asking for rejection. When you say that their teachings are wrong because yours have better terms, you create a fictional difference. But if you resist linking those new terms to the old terms, you create the differentiation and beg to be rejected.

“The Bible even describes Him with the term "all in all" (Col. 3:11).”

Finally! A verse! But what does it do for the discussion? Nothing. It is a great verse, but totally irrelevant to the discussion.

In fact, at this point, while the discussion is whether the Son is also the Father, there has been a lot of haggling over vague, spiritual-sounding things that have nothing to do with the topic. And only one irrelevant verse. Instead, a lot of baseless claims that would be characterized by the LRC as libelous if the tables were turned.

I now skip a couple of sentences and get to the final quoted sentence:

“Today, many Christians do not believe that Christ is not only the Son, but also the Father and the Spirit.”

If the topic is heresy, then the heresy is to assert that any Christians should believe what is stated here. In fact the kind of identity of Christ with the Father is laughable when you consider that Jesus prayed that we, the human Christians, would be one as the Father and Son are one. If they are literally the same, then Jesus prayed an impossibility. And don’t point at any considerations of the life to come because the oneness of the true followers is the reason that others will believe, therefore it cannot be put off until the New J.

The last paragraph (which I did not quote) is a defense against the claims that the LRC teaches a form of modalism. Other than declaring their allegiance to the verses where Jesus comes up from his baptism, there is nothing that furthers the claim that the Son is simply the Father and the Spirit.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

Mike, I saw this kind of parroting of Lee some 15 to 20 yrs ago on a local church yahoo group. I eventually concluded the possibility of these kinds of posts being generated by a computer algorithm, drawing from Witness Lee writings and speakings. So you might not be reading a post by a real person. It might just be coming from a machine. If not, it may as well be. It's just a regurgitation ... ad nauseam.

Ha.

When I try to discuss (debate) issues with others in the LC, it is like the discussion will immediately start to go around in circles. I can almost predict exactly how people will respond. Reverse psychology doesn't work either.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I try to discuss (debate) issues with others in the LC, it is like the discussion will immediately start to go around in circles. I can almost predict exactly how people will respond. Reverse psychology doesn't work either.

Yeah. Awareness may have overstated it when he suggested computer algorithms producing canned responses, but at some level it is not far off. The string of clichés and unsupported arguments is amazingly hollow. I will admit that I do not understand everything about the Trinity. But from the actual evidence (in the scripture) we are expected to be one (in this life) as the Father and Son are, therefore the Father and Son cannot simply be each other. And the environment in which even discussing the possibility that their position is wrong is forbidden makes it unacceptable for serious Christian fellowship.

I will admit that there is something to the idea of being willing to drop insistence on a lot of things and meet with people who are not 100% on the same page as me. But that does not mean that I abandon my thoughts — just put them on the back burner for the purpose of oneness. Besides, on some of the things, it could be me that is wrong (though if I thought that on any particular item, I would change my mind).

I do not agree with the idea of ceasing to meet regularly with others. And I am not sure that I count sporadic "two or three" meetings as qualifying under the notion of not forsaking the assembling together. That is not much of an assembly when there are so many others to include. Not saying that two or three is not real or that Jesus is not in their midst. But I do not think that particular situation was in consideration when the charge to assemble was made.

Now I understand the first steps out of the LRC can be difficult. You may find yourself unsure how to meet with others, therefore become somewhat sporadic about it. But I believe that ultimately it is in meeting, not in figuring it out on your own, that the cure is found. It might be wise to say little about what you think you know about "correct doctrine" for a while. Listen and study. It takes time. At some point, it might be good to be a little bit open with someone of substance who can help you as you navigate the rooting out of the serious error, and the relearning (or learning as the case may be) of the normal language of the Christian.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

... it is like the discussion will immediately start to go around in circles. I can almost predict exactly how people will respond.

It is a circular, reinforcing thought-system, and to leave it is perilous. So they'll tell each other to "be simple", and not to be "hardened" or "question" or "be critical". But of course they are free to question everyone else. The legitimacy of their thought-system is built on the de-legitimization of everyone else.

Here's an example I see of circular reasoning: "There is only one ministry per age;" and, "Witness Lee had the ministry of the age." Since Witness Lee had the ministry of the age, if he said there was only one ministry per age, then it must be true. It was true because WL had "God's oracle", God's present speaking on the earth today. But how do we know that WL had the ministry of the age? Because there can only be one ministry per age! Says who? Says the minister of the age! Round and round we go. If you try to question it you'll get questioned why you are "negative" or can't be "one with the brothers"; maybe you are ambitious, divisive, you got poisoned, etc. Or if they are feeling charitable, maybe you are just "confused"... they can't accept your critique on face value because that would entail stepping outside of the safe circle provided by their thought-world.

A real, give-and-take, mutually informing discussion with someone having this mindset is difficult. I have found this similar with JWs, and Mormons as well. If things get difficult they'll retreat into their safe, tautological statements. To them these are the unquestionable, impenetrable fortresses where they'll never be defeated. So they voluntarily remain ensconced there, within their cozy prison.

[awareness]

WOW! aron. I think sometimes, at least it seems, inspiration just flows out of you. Such seemed this post:

Originally Posted by aron

It is a circular, reinforcing thought-system, and to leave it is perilous.

I came to think of the first 3 yrs after leaving the local church as yrs of my deprogramming, And it was hard times, mentally & psychologically; emotionally, if you will.

Originally Posted by aron

The legitimacy of their thought-system is built on the de-legitimization of everyone else.

Their/my thought-system, back then, was challenging when bringing new ones in. It was like introducing them to a new set of nomenclature. The key was to be very excited about this new thought-system; like it was something new and shiny and very exciting.

In the C. in Ft. Lauderdale I remember we had groups that would take on any news ones, to bring them into this new thought system, and teach them the new nomenclature. And along the way we would teach them that all others were wrong. Only we were right. Hey I tasted that. It tasted good. I liked being better than everyone else, or at least belonging to a group that was.

I think the very appeal of this thought system, the gravitational pull, if you will, is that it provides certitude. But as you so aptly put it bro aron, the certitude is generated by circular thinking ; basically, "We are it, so if we say we are it, we are it."

Originally Posted by aron

If you try to question it you'll get questioned why you are "negative" or can't be "one with the brothers"; maybe you are ambitious, divisive, you got poisoned, etc. Or if they are feeling charitable, maybe you are just "confused"... they can't accept your critique on face value because that would entail stepping outside of the safe circle provided by their thought-world.

Or maybe you just started thinking for your self. That doesn't work in any thought-system. If you want to be a part of a thought system you can't think for your self. That would throw a monkey-wrench into the system. Think for your self and the thought system will have to throw you out like a broken gear. The thought system protects itself.

Originally Posted by aron

A real, give-and-take, mutually informing discussion with someone having this mindset is difficult. I have found this similar with JWs, and Mormons as well. If things get difficult they'll retreat into their safe, tautological statements. To them these are the unquestionable, impenetrable fortresses where they'll never be defeated. So they voluntarily remain ensconced there, within their cozy prison.

There's an invisible line. I get into discussions with JWs and Mormons, and Christians of different sorts. And every one of them has their invisible line, that when crossed results in cutting you off. In the local church thought system this line is questioning Witness Lee's ministry. Question that and you'll be thrown out like a broken gear.

Whatever you do, don't think for yourself.

That's why I advised bro Freedom that the first thing you need to do when coming out of the local church is to learn to think for yourself. In a thought-system such as the local church the thought-system does the thinking for you. And if you don't use it you lose it. So the ability to think for yourself in such a system atrophies, and needs to be developed again.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

I came to think of the first 3 yrs after leaving the local church as yrs of my deprogramming, And it was hard times, mentally & psychologically; emotionally, if you will.

When we were young we were gullible and susceptible to new ideas especially if we were involved in fundamentalist Christianity which automatically makes one susceptible to different Christian concepts. However, for some of us it kept us away from the really bad things of the 70s-80s e.g. drugs...although for some the deprogramming time frame was so difficult that many didn't make the transition to a reasonable life experience. I don't think that immediately transitioning to a fundamentalist belief system is necessarily the healthiest transition to make. It didn't work for me in the way one might imagine but maybe it has worked for some. As long as one continues to be a seeker of truth let the chips fall where they may. One shoe doesn't fit all.

[Lisbon]

A few months before leaving LC i was with two elders and one other "saint." I'm somewhat of a so-called scientist so was asked a question which I had no idea the answer. I stated I had no idea and further said the same about some of the teachings of the Bible and proceeded to quote one. The two elders just looked at me and did not answer one word. That no answer spoke to me of the "don't question what we say." I'm an old man so I think they might be a little hesitant to be too forceful.

This may be of no consequence at all but the month I made the decision to quit, my monthly check ceased. I've been back several times in the last two years but no money to the LC.

Lisbon