Good Lee/Bad Lee: Can They Be Separated?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem is not that all of these are separate items are not true. It is that there is nothing that makes any of them join up with all the others to cause any reference to the church as the "body" to mean more than what it means where it is written. In 1 Corinthians 12, the "body" reference is about the multitude of differing functions in the church, like it is in a body. It does mention Christ as the head. As it should. When and how we function should be a matter of interaction with Christ.

OBW,

Thanks for your response. I disagree in that all those items mentioned convey a life relationship. Seed to harvest, vine to branches, etc. Actually, you are going out of your way to deny the obvious in this case.

As pertains to the body of Christ, even if you were to relegate the meaning of I Cor 12 to simply a functioning of member, coordination, or cooperation like the 82nd Ariborne you deny the plain statement of the text for it does not say only that Christ is the Head, it says that Christ is the Body.

For, even as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, so also [is] the Christ, 1Cor 12:12

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

As pertains to the body of Christ, even if you were to relegate the meaning of I Cor 12 to simply a functioning of member, coordination, or cooperation like the 82nd Ariborne you deny the plain statement of the text for it does not say only that Christ is the Head, it says that Christ is the Body.

For, even as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, so also [is] the Christ, 1Cor 12:12

And when Jesus broke the bread at the last supper he said "this is my body," which is the logic the RCC uses when claiming the elements of the Lord's Supper become the literal body and blood of Jesus.

You've come full circle. Congrats.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And when Jesus broke the bread at the last supper he said "this is my body," which is the logic the RCC uses when claiming the elements of the Lord's Supper become the literal body and blood of Jesus.

You've come full circle. Congrats.

Don't impose your faulty conclusions on me. I don't believe in transubstantiation either.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Don't impose your faulty conclusions on me. I don't believe in transubstantiation either.

If you don't want people to claim you said things you didn't then don't make the claim about them.

I didn't say you believed in transubstantiation. My plain point was your logic for saying the Body of Christ is literally Christ is exactly the same as that which the transubstantianists use to claim the bread literally becomes Christ's body. You take one verse which may just be metaphorical and you insist it's literal.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you don't want people to claim you said things you didn't then don't make the claim about them.

I didn't say you believed in transubstantiation. My plain point was your logic for saying the Body of Christ is literally Christ is exactly the same as that which the transubstantianists use to claim the bread literally becomes Christs body.

You take one verse which may just be metaphorical and you insist it's literal.

So, the Body of Christ is either literal or metaphorical in every biblical instance? Cannot be both metaphorical and/or literal?

That's a question.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

So, the Body of Christ is either literal or metaphorical in every biblical instance? Cannot be both metaphorical and/or literal?

That's a question.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but my point is that if Matt 26:26 is not literal then it's possible 1 Cor 12:12 is not literal either.

Your logic seems to simply be that since 1 Cor 12:12 sounds literal it therefore must be literal. But if that's the only reason to consider it literal then you should apply the same logic to Matt 26:26.

Because unless you have a better explanation to claim the Body is literally Christ other than the literal sound of the text then you are cherry-picking if you don't apply the same logic to Matt 26:26.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but my point is that if Matt 26:26 is not literal then it's possible 1 Cor 12:12 is not literal either.

Your logic seems to simply be that since 1 Cor 12:12 sounds literal it therefore must be literal. But if that's the only reason to consider it literal then you should apply the same logic to Matt 26:26.

Because unless you have a better explanation to claim the Body is literally Christ other than the literal sound of the text then you are cherry-picking if you don't apply the same logic to Matt 26:26.

Any particular topic or verse in the Bible may be literal, may be metaphorical, or may be both. It must be determined in its context.

For instance, the bread that Jesus broke and gave to his disciples was not His physical body. The bread was a symbol as was the cup. Yet, the symbol speaks to the literal body and blood being broken and the ongoing remembering through these symbols by the partaking of the life and ever-efficacious blood by His believers. That is the organic reality behind the symbols of the bread and blood.

In Cor 12 there are both metaphor and literal explanations about the Body of Christ. The metaphor is the human body Paul talks about and the literal is when he says:

...so also [is] the Christ, "

Though Christ is the Head, He is also, according to this plain statement, the Body.

Some will claim that such a teaching suggests that the members of the Body of Christ are actually Christ. And they would be right. That is not "bad Lee" that is just good sound bible teaching.

If we only have two choices then that would be "good Lee".

[UntoHim]

Ok, anybody else got another classic example of Good Lee/Bad Lee?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, anybody else got another classic example of Good Lee/Bad Lee?

My contention in a nutshell is that Lee's bad teachings came out of those periods of time when his character was also in question.

Sorry if this appears to trigger moderator action. The OP never designated Good/Bad as teachings only independent of one's character.

Let me just itemize a few examples from my thoughts before I get cited by Topiq again.

• High peak theology (Bad Lee) followed the smear campaign and quarantines of many godly brothers
• LSM takeover actions of the Jan 1974 workers' gathering followed Daystar corruptions
• The healthiest time of WL's ministry in the US (Good Lee) followed a period of repentance as testified those who were there in the beginning

Some have said that bad behaviors come out of bad teachings, but I have said that the reverse has occurred more often.

[UntoHim]

Thanks Igzy. I guess I was thinking of one particular teaching. Maybe taking just one bite at a time. Your post can certainly serve as a comprehensive outline from which we can pick and choose our next teaching/practice.

Ohio,
I think teachings may or may not be connected with ones character. No doubt we can rightly judge a person's character by their behavior (their actions as well as their words). A minister/leader may very well teach sound and biblical things, but if they have some bad character flaws this may come out in their behavior, even to the point where it may disqualify them for ministry. If a minister/leader, by his actions/behavior, brings shames upon the Name of the Lord and his Church, I believe there comes a point when they have abdicated their privilege to minister.

Something related would be the teaching of false/heretical doctrines which may influence the practice of those who follow the teacher. This would be my point in saying that bad practices (not necessarily behavior) come out of bad teaching. One example would be the common Local Church teaching that their group, and their group alone, is practicing the "recovered church-life". The PRACTICAL result in the hearts and minds of those who imbibe this teaching is an exclusive, divisive attitude/behavior towards other Christians. This, of course, is just one of a great number of Witness Lee's teachings that have a negative impact on those who follow.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My contention in a nutshell is that Lee's bad teachings came out of those periods of time when his character was also in question.

Sorry if this appears to trigger moderator action. The OP never designated Good/Bad as teachings only independent of one's character.

Let me just itemize a few examples from my thoughts before I get cited by Topiq again.

• High peak theology (Bad Lee) followed the smear campaign and quarantines of many godly brothers
• LSM takeover actions of the Jan 1974 workers' gathering followed Daystar corruptions
• The healthiest time of WL's ministry in the US (Good Lee) followed a period of repentance as testified those who were there in the beginning

Some have said that bad behaviors come out of bad teachings, but I have said that the reverse has occurred more often.

Interesting points

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, anybody else got another classic example of Good Lee/Bad Lee?

Yes, I did with my post here which is threatened to be buried in the banter.

A point being that good Lee basically only happened when he just attempted to teach the scripture. Bad Lee happened whenever he attempted to be the minister of the age.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, anybody else got another classic example of Good Lee/Bad Lee?

The opening question is: Can good Lee and bad Lee be separated? I would say that the real need is to separate bad Lee from the good Word of God. Bad Lee is like leaven that leavens the whole lump. I have another example.

Lee says that I Cor. 6:17 shows the mingling of the Lord as the Spirit with our spirit. Does it really?

Lee says:

In verse 17 Paul says, “But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” The word joined in this verse refers to the believers’ organic union with the Lord through believing into Him (John 3:15-16). This union is illustrated by that of the branches with the vine (John 15:4-5). It is a matter not only of life, but also in life, the divine life. Such a union with the resurrected Lord can only be in our spirit.

The expression “one spirit” indicates the mingling of the Lord as the Spirit with our spirit. Our spirit has been regenerated by the Spirit of God (John 3:6), who is now in us (I Cor. 6:19) and is one with our spirit. This is the realization of the Lord who became the life-giving spirit through resurrection (I Cor. 15:45, II Cor. 3:17) and who is now with our spirit (I Tim. 4:22). This mingled spirit is often referred to in Paul’s Epistles, as in Romans 8:4-6. (Life Study of I Corinthians, pp. 345-46).

Note that Lee references a number of verses which make his claim (organic union, mingling) look as if it is supported by other scripture; however, none of these verses really support his claim.

Back to the verse itself and looking at the Greek meaning of “joined” it is plain that the verse is not talking about mingling.

joined
G2853
κολλάω
kollaō
kol-lah'-o
From κόλλαkolla (“glue”); to glue, that is, (passively or reflexively) to stick (figuratively): - cleave, join (self), keep company.

In light of this, I Cor. 6: 17 is saying something more like: he that is “glued” or “stuck to” or “cleaving to” or “keeping company with” the Lord is one spirit. This shows the “one spirit” connection between us and the Lord is like being glued to Him, cleaving closely to Him. It is not one of being mingled with Him. When two things are glued or stuck together, they become one, yet they are not mingled. This provides a much more accurate understanding of this verse. Lee’s handling of the Word here was sloppy and it should be noted that his “mingling” interpretation of this verse went on to become one of the foundational stones upon which he built his high peak theology of man becoming God.

Thankful Jane

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Back to the verse itself and looking at the Greek meaning of “joined” it is plain that the verse is not talking about mingling.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane,

It is not "joined" that is referring to the mingling specifically in your references, rather "one spirit".

Examine the references from Witness Lee you posted.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Thankful Jane,

It is not "joined" that is referring to the mingling specifically in your references, rather "one spirit".

Examine the references from Witness Lee you posted.

The fact is that I already examined them and that is why I wrote what I did. I saw plainly that Lee was referring to "one spirit" when he spoke about mingling.

That is the problem. You cannot say "He that is glued to the Lord is mingled with the Lord." It doesn't work.

Thankful Jane

[John]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

OBW,

... you deny the plain statement of the text for it does not say only that Christ is the Head, it says that Christ is the Body.

For, even as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, so also [is] the Christ, 1Cor 12:12

The text of 1 Cor. 12:12 does not plainly state that “Christ is the Body.”

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by OBW

All this talk about the body in very literal terms. Has anyone considered that all of this "body" talk in the NT is descriptive in terms of the inter-workings, the relationships, etc.

I agree with you, OBW. Many, maybe all, Bible illustrations, comparisons, metaphors, etc. are used to teach us, in ways we can easily understand, about our relationship with God. They are not things in themselves that are to be taken in an exacting, literal way. For instance, the Lamb of God, clearly conveys something about Christ's relationship to us and His purpose for coming among us. He was not a literal little wooly lamb with four legs who belonged to God.

Two of the most outstanding relationship descriptors in the Bible are Father and Husband. These two speak volumes. We understand a lot by both of them about how God relates to us and we to Him. Even my grandchildren can understand me when I say God is our Father.

Now just what would they (or others who had not been soaked with Lee teachings) understand by the following verbage?

Originally Posted by Cassidy

This means that this Divine Trinity when He becomes one with His believers through the divine life forms a great corporate divine-human entity which Lee terms the "four-in-one" blended together by God Himself

I’ll can visualize the blank looks on my granddaughters faces if I were to make such a statement to them. But, I would never make such a statement because it’s not in the Bible. This statement is Lee's description of the New Jerusalem. He also said, similarly, of the New Jerusalem that it was the mingling of the tripartite man with the Triune God for eternity. These are just different ways of saying what he eventually spelled out, which was “man is becoming God.”

Please, anyone, show me where Scripture that says the New Jerusalem is a divine-human entity blended together by God or that it is tripartite man mingled with the Triune God.

I can show that the Bible says plainly that the New Jerusalem is the tabernacle of God, the Holy City, the Lamb’s wife. It says there is a throne in that city that belongs uniquely to God and the Lamb. We can understand such statements … but a blended divine-human entity??? ... a mingling of the Triune God with tripartite man???

Revelation ends with a wonderful relationship. The Lamb of God marries the holy city Jerusalem. (Note that a lamb marrying a city is not a literal matter, either.) This marriage is a holy relationship that will last forever; it is not some kind of fourth thing called a great corporate divine-human entity which God has blended together.

Thankful Jane

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I agree with you, OBW. Many, maybe all, Bible illustrations, comparisons, metaphors, etc. are used to teach us, in ways we can easily understand, about our relationship with God. They are not things in themselves that are to be taken in an exacting, literal way. For instance, the Lamb of God, clearly conveys something about Christ's relationship to us and His purpose for coming among us. He was not a literal little wooly lamb with four legs who belonged to God.

I agree with this. Related to the "body" metaphor, Apostle Paul taught "if the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body." Paul spoke as if one member was "the foot." Who was this member? Is "the foot" still alive in some churches? Paul did not say some member was like the foot. No. He referred to that member directly as "the foot."

Here Cassidy follows WL to selectively make a certain metaphor literal to promote one's own teachings. As much as I love Martin Luther, I cannot agree that he maintained his power base in Germany by doing the same thing with the phrase, "This is My body." Using a literal interpretation of this phrase, he rejected all fellowship with the Swiss brethren, and maintained his own power base, creating a division in the body of Christ.

Had WL been willing to accept a little balance from other members in the body of Christ, we would not be having this discussion about the body being in the Godhead.

[John]

I was going to post to Cassidy earlier, but I was waiting for him to reply to Jane about 1st Cor. 6:17 (since he stated that he would reply after some consideration). Since it has been over a week and a half since his post to her, it seems that he may not return. And, since some have referenced the posts of his that I was going to address, I thought that I should put this out to try and get to the truth.


Cassidy,

I wrote in post #108 that the text of 1 Cor. 12:12 does not plainly state that “Christ is the Body.” This may not have registered with you, since you have not responded.


What you wrote

Here’s what you wrote in #87:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

OBW,

...

As pertains to the body of Christ, even if you were to relegate the meaning of I Cor 12 to simply a functioning of member, coordination, or cooperation like the 82nd Ariborne you deny the plain statement of the text for it does not say only that Christ is the Head, it says that Christ is the Body.

For, even as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, so also [is] the Christ, 1Cor 12:12

I find it interesting that you quote from the Bible and even bring in some Greek in other posts but seem not to really understand the plain English of 1 Cor. 12:12 to which you refer.


A degree of English

Notice that the text of 1 Cor. 12:12 is written as a comparison with two sides, if you will, like an equation. I will use different words (hopefully, disentangling it from the “Body” theology of Witness Lee), to express the basic meaning of the two sides of the linguistic equation that Paul gave us in this verse:

• A physical, human form is one whole made up of many parts.

• Christ’s form is the same (that is, one whole made up of many parts).

This is the most elementary description of the meaning of 12:12 read in isolation from the rest of the chapter. I am not maintaining that this is the only meaning that one can glean from this text. Keep in mind that I’m writing about the meaning of an English sentence and not about theology.

Regardless how you read the plain, basic English of 1 Cor. 12:12 and consider its structure, the text does not state plainly that “Christ is the Body,” as you emphatically stated, using red and underlined fonts. Not only that, the text doesn’t even state that “Christ is the Head,” which you also stated that it does.

Additionally, although I’ve limited my discussion to 1 Cor. 12:12, which was your text, I don’t believe you can find support for your “Christ is the Body” statement anywhere in chapter 12. In fact, chapter 12 says that the body is made up of many members (14) and it indicates that the head is just another one of the members (21).

[John]

Paul used the head and body imagery in several of his epistles; however, one would expect that Paul would use his imagery uniformly within any given letter. With this in mind, consider that he does not state that Christ is the body or even that Christ is the head of the body in Corinthians. In Corinthians, he uses the body as a way to describe how we members should fit together and work together for the body as a whole.

That being said, I am not suggesting that his usage of the body metaphor in Corinthians is the same in the rest of his epistles. Colossians 1:18 does state that Christ is the head of the body, the church; and, also, Ephesians 4:15–16 indicate that Christ is the head of the body.

Paul does not, however, according to what I’ve found, state in any of his writings that Christ is the body. That is a concept that Mr. Lee arrived at by using human reason, an activity that he warned us against, by the way. Witness Lee seems to have gone farther than Paul to come up with the idea that Christ is the Body; and, that idea can lead to a distortion of what it means to live a Christian life.

For example, if one thinks that Christ is the Body; then, a reasonable corollary might be that the Body is Christ. This kind of thinking can have a huge negative impact on an individual. Consider just one slogan that I recall from the earlier days of the Living Stream Ministry: “The voice of the Body is the mind of the Lord.” If this is the case, then all I have to do to know the mind of the Lord is to ask the Body (since Body=Christ), which usually translates in the Local Church system to following the instructions of Mr. Lee and the elders.

Doing this, not only is a person manipulated into following men slavishly to likely detriment, this “theology” robs a person of experiences of Jesus Christ, the only One Who should be our Lord and Master.

[John]

Another passage that Lee used to support his notion that Christ is the Body (and Cassidy mentioned) is from Acts. In the passage, an interchange between Jesus and Saul went like this, beginning with Saul speaking:

And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. (Acts 22:7–8)

Mr. Lee reasoned that Paul had not been persecuting Jesus but only those of the way. Further, since Jesus said that Saul was persecuting Him, Lee reasoned that Christ is the Body (or, maybe, the Body is Christ).

Again, this may sound reasonable in the land of Lee, but using these verses does not prove his point; because, it is an interpretation based on an arcane understanding of English. What would be another way to understand that kind of a statement? I could say, for example, that someone who persecutes my son is persecuting me. Native speakers of English would understand that I would consider a person coming against my son as coming against me. I doubt that any sane native speaker of English would think that my son is me.

I do not understand. Are you saying that Lee's interpretation was merely one possible interpretation?

Most teachings in the Bible are interpretations. Virtually all of our teachings on the end times and the Lord's second coming are interpretations.

The teachings that have been "proved" are those that are the tenants of the faith.

[John]

Originally Posted by Guest 1

I do not understand. Are you saying that Lee's interpretation was merely one possible interpretation?

Most teachings in the Bible are interpretations. Virtually all of our teachings on the end times and the Lord's second coming are interpretations.

The teachings that have been "proved" are those that are the tenants of the faith.

Here's my response, based on the assumption that you are referring to my post #167:

Yes.

Lee, however, did not allow that any other interpretations were possible. He stated that the Acts passage proved that Christ is the Body. I’m stating that Lee's is not only just one interpretation, it’s also the most unusual one when considering how English is commonly understood.

[John]

It is very difficult for those of us who were or are members of the Local Church and were or are saturated with Witness Lee’s ministry to read the Scripture for what it states without reading something of Mr. Lee into it.

Consider the one word, “body,” in 1 Cor. 12:12. What do we think when we read it? Do we do as Cassidy did and capitalize it to “Body”? If so, why? I would guess that unconsciously, upon reading it, the Witness Lee sermons take over and control what we think, obscuring the intended meaning of its usage in 1st Corinthians. In our minds, there is a little lee doing the “Christ=Body” association whenever we read “body.”

This can be very destructive. Think about how “The Body” became a controlling vision for most or all in the Lord’s Recovery, to which all else must be subservient (since, in Lee land, Christ=Body and Body=Christ, and we must be subservient to Christ). In the land of Lee, a term was even coined for this: the Body-Christ. I’ve found that it can take decades to get some of these things out of my mind and get back to the unadulterated Word of God. And this is just one example.

To give you a further idea of just how difficult it can be to read the Bible without the little lee intervening, take Cassidy as an example. Read back through his exchanges with Jane about 1 Cor. 6:17. She wrote to him about the meaning of the simple English of one verse in the Bible. He was so indoctrinated with Lee that he couldn’t even understand the basic English of it until she basically hit him with a 2 x 4 (after several softer posts didn’t work).

Some of us, I think, don’t even realize the truth of what we read because the associations with Lee’s vocabulary and theology are so strong and enduring. I wonder just how many of us who are physically out of the Local Church are still in some kind of a semi-Lee state, unconsciously filtering the Bible through Lee, not realizing that we are still captives of the Living Stream Ministry, at least to some degree.


Birds of the air; thorns of Lee

While thinking about having our minds usurped by the doctrine of Lee, I remembered the parable about the one who sowed seed into different kinds of ground. I thought of (1) birds flying through our brains and snatching away the seed of the pure Word of God and replacing it with Lee before it could even take root, and I thought about (2) having the seed of Christ’s word begin to grow in us only to have the cares of Lee grow up and choke out what God would speak to us.

May we all get to the unadulterated Word of God, for it is the truth. And we shall know the truth, and the truth shall make us free.