Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Yet when you think about it, it should sound rather strange that we would favor the Gospels over the writings of the apostle Paul, or the other way around. They are both "the living and abiding Word of God" and both "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness".

I understand your point. And I do not disagree. But even within the "living and abiding Word of God" there is a difference between the direct speaking of God and the indirect speaking through men. Between the actions of God, the Son, and analysis provided by others when dealing with specific issues.

My point is that Lee took Paul as the core of the New Testament and reread everything in light of his reading of Paul. (I can't say "in light of Paul" because I see too many errors in his reading of Paul.) But if I have a choice to read what Christ directly said and did, and seek to understand Paul's words in that light, or conversely take what Paul wrote and try to read the gospels as modified by my understanding of Paul, I choose the former. I choose to read the gospels as the source and Paul as commentary. If there seems to be a problem, it is probably a misreading of the commentary because the source was rather direct in his speaking.

After reading Paul, you can argue about whether we are or are not required to fulfill the righteousness of the law, and whether the whole Bible is about dispensing. But read the gospels and Jesus said to be as holy as he is. To love your neighbor as yourself. To care for the poor, widows, orphans, aliens among you, etc. To not even think about adultery. To not even hate your brother.

In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus starts his discussion of righteousness with the following:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

I'm convinced that so much of Lee's "soak up God an don't just try to do it" theology is a variation on setting aside more than one of "these commands." The penalty falls to him for doing it. But there is a consequence to our lives, even if not as severe as Lee's, for continuing to live as if it is all about being spiritual, and just abiding, and never doing (at least until is just falls on you). Funny thing is that if you are waiting for it to fall on you, I suspect that you will never do — because it doesn't just fall. We actually have to do. Not just abide. Or "care for life."

Jesus didn't suggest that we should be seeking dispensing before doing any of his commands. He said to obey and there would be an abiding. Lee claims Paul said the opposite (in so many words). Who do you take as the source and who the commentator? And if someone is wrong in their analysis, I suggest it is the one who says that you don't have to do. Why? Because Jesus said you do have to do. That means that whoever thinks Paul said otherwise is misreading — unless you want to argue that Paul really shouldn't be in the scripture (which I do not intend to do).

The answer is Christ is the source. Paul is just the commentator. Lee turned so many of Paul's specific comments about how various groups were effectively being unrighteous into theology about how to be spiritual. All while ignoring the righteousness.

There is a significant group today that actually kind of ignores all that Paul wrote. I think this is too much. We really would not understand it all without the commentaries that Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, and whoever wrote Hebrews had to say. But without the gospels, there is nothing to comment on. But without the commentaries, I bet we could make a pretty good pass at the kind of spiritual and practical obedience that Jesus called for.

[OBW]

I was informed by our dear moderator (also referred to recently as the Topiq Natzi) that he inadvertently deleted a post of mine and could not recover it. Upon a close look, I do not have the original, but based upon his quotes from it, I can reconstruct the meat of it.

My first thought was not to bother. But upon reflection, I believe that its content was worthy of some thought. I know that having had those thoughts, I have been challenged concerning my thoughts about others, especially those who are trying to do the “right thing” even when not always succeeding or looking spiritual as they do it.

I initially keyed off of the following statement by Igzy:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee's emphasis on "life" was initially a needed pushback to religious self-effort, which if you visited evangelical churches in the mid-20th century was probably the norm.

If you read more of that post, Igsy says “Dead churches are not the problem today.” I did not quote that part originally, but what come to me was the consideration that it might just be that dead churches never were the problem.

And that is where I jumped off into my thoughts.

Is it possible that setting the mind on the Spirit and walking according to the Spirit results in people actually doing things that simply look like righteousness. And the fact that they fail at it sometime is proof that we do not always maintain the “according to” and “set” throughout our day. But the fact that they at least try is proof that they are obedient rather than rebellious.

If we are charged to be holy as Christ is holy, and to teach (or be taught) to obey all that Christ commanded, then I would suspect that there should be a lot of people actually doing a lot that could be seen as “religious effort” when viewed from Lee’s “let the dispensing do it for you” Leeology. And maybe the only people who are wrong are the ones who don’t even try. Who don’t even give it some religious effort. (I am only referring to those who are redeemed, not the heathen and the social Christian.)

Maybe all those Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Charismatics, Bible Churhers, etc., who are trying are the ones that God loves and abides with. Those who refuse to do are not obeying and are not getting that kind of abiding.

And it has always been that way. Lee fed us some kind of nonsense about “religious effort” being bad because it drove a wedge between us and them. And we never bothered to question whether or not he was right.

Then I commented a little (without quote) to this part of Ohio’s post:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The reason why some former members on this forum lean to the side of righteousness and obedience to the Lord, and the matters of "right and wrong," is that WL and company committed numerous acts of unrighteousness all the while hiding behind the banner of "we only care for life."

It is also reported that Phillip Lee, the reprobate "Office" manager at LSM during the turbulent times of the "new way," who was involved in numerous obnoxious and hideous immoralities, had the same favorite saying in times of crisis, "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life."

With such an equivocating saying such as that, just about any crime could be swept under the rug at LSM.

And he is quite correct. I also note that in his post #17 he took it further, being very direct to state that both Jesus and the Apostles spoke very differently than Lee about right and wrong. “Paul says the kingdom of God is firstly righteousness.”

Spot on.

Unless your righteousness exceed that of Lee, his son, and the BBs, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. But Lee taught us that we could be just like them all.

I’m sure that this is sufficiently different than the original post. But I think the question/suggestion that religious effort and the state of Christianity in that matter was never in error, even in the 60s, was the main thrust. Without this, the very foundational reason for the LRC, and all of those claims about Christianity’s horrible state of being, were never correct.

I might even go so far as to suggest that, even with the obvious errors we see in the RCC, it is not as all-out rotten as we were lead to believe. It sort of sticks in my craw as I say it. But I’m beginning to think that I need a new set of eyes for so much of this. There is still way too much Lee in them.

[OBW]

As an addendum, If you put my final paragraph that makes some reference to the RCC with the earlier one that talks about all those other groups, it might be that the RCC should have been included there. Maybe we should learn to let God be the one to judge their error (assuming they actually have any).

[Cal]

Honestly, I'll bet every charitable work done by church volunteers feels much of the time like "religious effort." If all we needed to excuse ourselves from works of service was to find some reason to call what we were doing "religious effort," then a lot of needed service would never get performed.

This explains why the LRC rarely pitches into help anyone but themselves.

I wonder if helping the abused traveler felt like "religious effort" to the Good Samaritan? Interesting that avoiding "religious effort" did not seem to be on the forefront of the Lord's thought in that parable.

[Cal]

OBW, I believe a certain lack of the experience of the Holy Spirit was indeed a problem in the mid-century Church in America. Tozer talks a lot about it in his book The Counselor. Jesus did cite spiritual deadness as a problem in the church in Sardis. Although I'm not sure those Rev churches are historically prophetic in the way Lee taught, I do think they represent typical errors churches can fall into, one being deadness.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

OBW, I believe a certain lack of the experience of the Holy Spirit was indeed a problem in the mid-century Church in America. Tozer talks a lot about it in his book The Counselor. Jesus did cite spiritual deadness as a problem in the church in Sardis. Although I'm not sure those Rev churches are historically prophetic in the way Lee taught, I do think they represent typical errors churches can fall into, one being deadness.

I agree. But what was the sign of the deadness 30+ years ago? Was it that some did "religious effort"? Or was it that they lost the taste to do even that?

I wonder if the true deadness was that there ceased to be any effort. And then along came the LRC (and a lot of other inner-life groups) that put spiritual activity on the front burner, but did little-to-nothing to get people back to actual obedience. In other words, they got active in terms of exuberance (the LRC had that in spades), but not in terms of doing some of that missing "religious effort."

Oddly enough, the only ones engaged in real "religious effort" were the RCC and the "liberal" churches. Maybe many of those liberal churches weren't sure enough about some of the miraculous things, but at least they were obedient to the Christ that they claimed to believe in. They might have been doing a better job at true righteousness than the rest of us. Of course, now everyone is engaged in those things. Well, almost everyone.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I agree. But what was the sign of the deadness 30+ years ago? Was it that some did "religious effort"? Or was it that they lost the taste to do even that?

I wonder if the true deadness was that there ceased to be any effort. And then along came the LRC (and a lot of other inner-life groups) that put spiritual activity on the front burner, but did little-to-nothing to get people back to actual obedience. In other words, they got active in terms of exuberance (the LRC had that in spades), but not in terms of doing some of that missing "religious effort."

Oddly enough, the only ones engaged in real "religious effort" were the RCC and the "liberal" churches. Maybe many of those liberal churches weren't sure enough about some of the miraculous things, but at least they were obedient to the Christ that they claimed to believe in. They might have been doing a better job at true righteousness than the rest of us. Of course, now everyone is engaged in those things. Well, almost everyone.

Very good point.

Seems like genuine charitable works don't have much to do with "religious effort." I think God honors any selfless act done simply for the sake of caring for another.

"Religious effort" would seem to be something done to advance one's religion rather that simply advancing God, e.g. the Pharisees advancing their flavor of Judaism.

Note in Matthew 7:22-23* Jesus said some would engage in religious efforts but those efforts would do them no good. However, the efforts he cites are all ones of, for lack of a better term, "spirituality." The Lord doesn't cite simple acts of goodness and charity as being in vain.

Also, remember that acts of charity were enough to justify the sheep in the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.

Never sneer at a simple act of kindness.

*Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’Matt 7:22-23.

[Cal]

Also I think God honors sincere efforts to be righteous, whether they are "religious" or not.

Originally Posted by OBW

There is a significant group today that actually kind of ignores all that Paul wrote. I think this is too much. We really would not understand it all without the commentaries that Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, and whoever wrote Hebrews had to say. But without the gospels, there is nothing to comment on. But without the commentaries, I bet we could make a pretty good pass at the kind of spiritual and practical obedience that Jesus called for.

I would prefer to say without Christ and His work there would be nothing to comment on. The gospels were being written during and after (John's) most of the epistles were written.

In the early church a congregation might have a copy of one gospel and 2 epistles. Or 3 epistles and no gospel. Things were more fluid then they are today.