Good Lee/Bad Lee: Can They Be Separated?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Just so you’ll know that I heard you, you used the illustration of the vine in John 15 to say that joining or gluing makes way for the mingling. You also claimed that the same illustration illustrates the “divine-human mingling” which shows that joining and mingling fit well together in I Cor 6:17. You said this was because “once joined, absorbing the essence of the divine life is the mingling.” Just so we’re clear, your explanation is Lee’s interpretation of the vine and branches. It only presents a partial view of John 15, the part that Lee believes supports his mingling theology...

First, a call to holiness, a holy living, to be holy as the Father is holy, to go on from the fundamentals of the initial christian birth, contending for what the Bible teaches, having a cognitive and conversational relationship with the Lord, etc. are things I 100% agree with.

Witness Lee taught those same things. The difference is that he taught there is a process to achieve those things, what he termed mingling. But let's see if there really is a fundamental difference in our beliefs: Setting aside the term mingling for a moment (several similar terms will do in my opinion), would you say we are able to be holy apart from the life of Christ? Would you suggest that once we believe into the Lord and are joined/glued to Him that we can become unglued to the point of losing our salvation? Would you even suggest that a holy living as defined by the scriptures is possible without a dependency on the divine provision given to us by God Himself. Would you further suggest that the divine provision are "things" and not something of God Himself? Do you also believe that any exertion of the self will please God whether it be for living or service?

Let me propose and answer for both you and me: All holiness, all expressions of Christ, all display of the virtues of Christ, our attachment to Christ and our abiding in Him, all fruit of the Spirit, is not accomplished by self-effort, is not a result of naturally-born human virtue nor self-determination, is not found in good works of the flesh. Rather, only Christ can express Christ, only the life of Christ lived through the redeemed man can issue in the fruit of the Spirit, express the virtues of Christ, and issue in a holy living that is pleasing to God. It is the righteous who have life (zoe) and live by faith. We are righteous because of Him for without Him there is none righteous, no not one! If you agree with this then there is little to no disagreement between us on the fundamentals of the Bible teaching on this matter. Do you agree? I think you do.

Assuming you do, then the term "mingling" is a minor point. Witness Lee, does not say mingling is all there is, he said mingling is the way. He has hundreds of books on many topics related to the christian life and the church, they are not just about mingling as if that were the only topic. Does Witness Lee return to the topic of mingling? Yes, he does, because in his view the experience of the life of Christ and all related matters result in all the expressions of the christian life. You call it whatever you like. I prefer co-inhere but mingling will do too.

Don't discard the fact though you disagree with the term.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Let me propose and answer for both you and me: All holiness, all expressions of Christ, all display of the virtues of Christ, our attachment to Christ and our abiding in Him, all fruit of the Spirit, is not accomplished by self-effort, is not a result of naturally-born human virtue nor self-determination, is not found in good works of the flesh. Rather, only Christ can express Christ, only the life of Christ lived through the redeemed man can issue in the fruit of the Spirit, express the virtues of Christ, and issue in a holy living that is pleasing to God. It is the righteous who have life (zoe) and live by faith. We are righteous because of Him for without Him there is none righteous, no not one! If you agree with this then there is little to no disagreement between us on the fundamentals of the Bible teaching on this matter. Do you agree? I think you do.

Then there are all the verses which seem to say our self-effort is good for something. "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." etc.

It's not either/or, it's both/and. God works, but he expects our working as well.

The idea that we "just eat" or "just get in the dispensing" and make no effort to do good works is not biblical. It's that kind of thinking that produced the elder who wouldn't help his sick wife with the dishes because he wasn't sure doing so would be "in life."

I believe this is OBW's and TJ's point.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Then there are all the verses which seem to say our self-effort is good for something. "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." etc...

Working out our salvation is cooperating with the divine life.

So yes.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Working out our salvation is cooperating with the divine life. So yes.

Why not call it cooperating with the Lord? Why de-personalize it by calling it "the divine life?" God is personal. God is life. The Person is life. You can't separate the life from the Person. Implying you could was another of Lee's errors.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Why not call it cooperating with the Lord? Why de-personalize it by calling it "the divine life?" God is personal. God is life. The Person is life. You can't separate the life from the Person. Implying you could was another of Lee's errors.

The divine life (zoe) is a Person and there is only one Person who is the way, the truth, and the life (zoe)

But okay, I'll update as follows:

Working out our salvation is cooperating with the Lord.

So yes.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The divine life (zoe) is a Person . . . .

This is just one example of a small error with big extensions.

"Zoe" is not merely "divine life." It is more generally the completeness of life. It is not merely the physical life, nor the psychological life, nor the enjoyment of life (the "high life"), but is the combination of them all. It is the whole enchilada. It is the combination of physical, psychological life, coupled with the enjoyment of life.

Most dictionaries do include a reference to "God's life" down the list somewhere. This is because it is presumed theologically that God's life must be complete. But the other definitions do not require that God be included for the term to be meaningful.

We can correctly argue that you do not have the best that life can offer without God's life. But all those guys eating pizza and drinking beer as they watch a football game together are experiencing zoe. It may not rise to the level of satisfaction that the life we can live with God does, but it is still zoe.

My argument is not to say that we do not need God's life. But everywhere that the word "zoe" is found in the NT does not simply mean "God's life." It always means the fullness of life. And for those who are mired in a miserable life on earth, adding God's life does bring zoe to them, although not in the way that the world would expect it.

So, if whenever you find "zoe" you simply replace it with "God's life," you are not being faithful to the text. Zoe is not simply a person. Neither are grace, love, or mercy. These are all attributes, features, etc., of life, interactions, etc., that are observable outside of the spiritual context by very decidedly unspiritual people. And for the spiritual, grace is meaningless if it is not observed and experienced. The same goes for life (zoe), love, and mercy. And when I say "experienced," I do not mean that some kind of "experience of Christ" stands in for these because he simply is all of these. If you do not actually experience grace, then simply referring to Christ and saying he is grace is meaningless. Same for love, mercy, and life (zoe).

[Paul Cox]

Good point, Mike. Another example would be the word "Ecclesia." There were ecclesias long before the Church was founded. Yet, when we sit and listen to the almighty theology experts, or Greek experts, we presume that the Lord brought those words into existence precisely at the time of the founding of the Church. I guess another translation for Zoe would be "The good life."

P.C.

[Cal]

I've believe when the Bible mentions zoe it is talking about an experience of living that can only be found in relationship with God.

Although in one sense you can say that happy people having fun could be experiencing zoe, I don't think the Bible takes that broad a view of the word. The Bible clearly says if you don't have the Son you don't have zoe, whether you have pizza, beer and football or not. (Though all three are pretty good. Though not good enough when the Cowboys lose. )

In one sense, however, you can call zoe God, or Jesus if you prefer.

On the other hand it includes the effect God has our existence in general. When I experience God, my human life takes on the characteristic of zoe. It becomes "the good life."

I do not think zoe means primarily "the life force that exists in God." This is the way Lee came to mean it. Again that was a move which de-personalized God into a force or power that had effect on us spontaneously. He may not have meant it that way, but that's the way it worked out.

[Cal]

This is why Lee didn't like the book of James. It threw a monkey wretch in his view of how God worked. Lee taught "just get in the divine dispensing." But James taught just the opposite it seemed, at least in that letter. James said, essentially, "just make a effort to do good works."

James was attempting to address passivity when it came to practical Christian behavior.

We have the power of the Holy Spirit, but it takes an act of will to get to that power. There is no way around that. Obviously, being enamored of the Lord and enjoying him is a starting point, but it takes self-effort to even get there. I don't usually wake up in the morning full of the Lord's presence. I have to make an effort to get there. I have to make an effort to be kind to my wife and kids. Yes, the Spirit makes it a lot easier, but I still have to make a decision to do it.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is why Lee didn't like the book of James. It threw a monkey wretch in his view of how God worked. Lee taught "just get in the divine dispensing." But James taught just the opposite it seemed, at least in that letter. James said, essentially, "just make a effort to do good works."...

Right, we need to set our will to cooperate with the Lord's life within.

Just doing good works without the Lord's life is pointless. I see it collaboratively as you stated in the last paragraph.

[OBW]

Igzy,

In response to your general question, I would suggest that the ongoing legacy of Lee's ministry is to be obscure and unknown.

In other contexts, I have noted that Nee is considered by many to generally be among the "Inner Life" teachers that began to arise in the 20th century. He may have come and gone before many of the other more notable members of that genre, but, ignoring the problems I see in his ministry, he fits in fairly well with that group — at least as far as the portions of his writings that have been made available in the US are concerned.

And I have noted that the Inner Life movement was, to some extent, part of the move to bring spirituality, even a kind of appreciation of the "mystical" side of the faith, back into the heavily intellectual base of the Evangelicals and fundamentalists.

But as little of Nee as is actually out there in general, I would say that his impact is fairly small. And Lee will never be because he tied his teaching to a "we are it and you are not" theology. It is too tainted for more than a few studying the effects of extreme Christians sects to even take note.

And the continued discovery of the errors, even though many may be somewhat small, will put even more people on alert. In fact, it may be the proliferation of small errors that is the most egregious because it is in the constant mixture of error with truth that the truth becomes unrecognizable. I can feel more comfortable reading Rob Bell's Heaven Wins and know where I take exception to him than I can reading Lee and always having to look to see if he has altered the tint of virtually everything so as to seem correct but actually be pointing us ever so slightly over Russian airspace. (Not dissing Russians, but noting that it was a faulty entry of coordinates that sent that passenger (Korean Air?) jet over Russian airspace back when the cold war was still in vogue.)

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Witness Lee taught those same things. The difference is that he taught there is a process to achieve those things, what he termed mingling. But let's see if there really is a fundamental difference in our beliefs: Setting aside the term mingling for a moment (several similar terms will do in my opinion), would you say we are able to be holy apart from the life of Christ?

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Would you suggest that once we believe into the Lord and are joined/glued to Him that we can become unglued to the point of losing our salvation? Would you even suggest that a holy living as defined by the scriptures is possible without a dependency on the divine provision given to us by God Himself. Would you further suggest that the divine provision are "things" and not something of God Himself? Do you also believe that any exertion of the self will please God whether it be for living or service?

Let me propose and answer for both you and me: All holiness, all expressions of Christ, all display of the virtues of Christ, our attachment to Christ and our abiding in Him, all fruit of the Spirit, is not accomplished by self-effort, is not a result of naturally-born human virtue nor self-determination, is not found in good works of the flesh. Rather, only Christ can express Christ, only the life of Christ lived through the redeemed man can issue in the fruit of the Spirit, express the virtues of Christ, and issue in a holy living that is pleasing to God. It is the righteous who have life (zoe) and live by faith. We are righteous because of Him for without Him there is none righteous, no not one! If you agree with this then there is little to no disagreement between us on the fundamentals of the Bible teaching on this matter. Do you agree? I think you do.

Assuming you do, then the term "mingling" is a minor point. Witness Lee, does not say mingling is all there is, he said mingling is the way. He has hundreds of books on many topics related to the christian life and the church, they are not just about mingling as if that were the only topic. Does Witness Lee return to the topic of mingling? Yes, he does, because in his view the experience of the life of Christ and all related matters result in all the expressions of the christian life. You call it whatever you like. I prefer co-inhere but mingling will do too.

Don't discard the fact though you disagree with the term

I don't think I can answer the questions as you’ve posed them without a lot of explanation. In other words, many of the phrases and terms you use need to be defined and qualified as to what you mean by them and what I would mean by them. I face a similar delimma with your statement of what we believe that you think is in common. Since I find responding to all this to be a complicated endeavor, I think I’ll just go at it by summarizing the main points I hear you making in your questions and your statement and then respond to them. If I have missed, misunderstood, or misstated something in the following summarization, please let me know:

1. I hear you saying that the final result, whatever that looks like (holiness, virtues, abiding, fruit of the Spirit, righteousness), is all Christ Himself expressed, nothing of us, and that if we agree on that, we are basically in agreement.

2. I also hear you saying that terms do not matter that much. What matters is that we end up believing the same thing.

3. I hear you saying that Witness Lee does not say mingling is all there is, but rather he says that mingling is the way.

I’ll respond to each of these in the next few posts.

[Thankful Jane]

The easiest one first:

3. I hear you saying that Witness Lee does not say mingling is all there is, but rather he says that mingling is the way.

I agree that Lee taught other things and did not say mingling was all there is, but that mingling was the way. I also agree that he always returned to this point.

[Thankful Jane]

2. I also hear you saying that terms do not matter that much. What matters is that we end up believing the same thing.

I believe that terms matter a great deal. Words have meaning.

The meaning of the word "mingling" and the assertion that mingling is the way, create an understanding that impacts behavior. Because of the behavioral impact of this teaching, I believe the word mingling should be discarded. It is not biblical. It is not the way.

Christ is the way. We experience him as our way by interacting with Him directly, using words that have meaning and hearing words from Him that have meaning and applicability to us specifically. I no longer practice coming to Him to get his life dispensed into me, as I did while I was under the mingling teaching. I now, under the teaching of the Bible, come to Him to hear Him (This is my beloved Son, Hear ye him) and obey Him (If any man loves me, he will keep my commandments). In my experience the latter works, the first did not.


To me the important thing about any teaching using a term is not only what it causes us to believe, but what behavior it produces in the final analysis. In other words, the end result of a teaching is a behavior, not simply a theology or belief system. Lee taught that we needed to be saturated with Christ as the life-giving Spirit and thus we would express Christ’s life, but did this teaching produce this result in Lee? If he was practicing what he was preaching and receiving dispensing, why did he lead others to disobey the word and cover up an elder’s gross sin? Did he disobey the Word of God in this case because he didn’t have enough dispensing? Why did he never repent for this to the Lord and to those hurt by his disobedience?

I say that there was no need for any dispensing in that case for Lee to be able to simply read the Bible, agree with its command, bow his knee to his Lord, and decide that he would yield to God and obey His command. When he decided to obey, God would have supplied him with what he needed to do so (Rom 6:12-13, 16-19). I think that Romans 6:19 and 22 shows that this kind of practice leads to holiness in our living, not vice versa.

[Thankful Jane]

1. I hear you saying that the final result, whatever that looks like (holiness, virtues, abiding, fruit of the Spirit, righteousness), is all Christ Himself expressed, nothing of us, and that if we agree on that, we are basically in agreement.

Lastly, I do not think it is only Christ, as you describe. It is Christ in us. I am not parsing at words. Let me explain. I am important to God. I am in the picture. Lee’s definition of “self” was wrong and resulted in the idea that God did not want anything of us. This is false. The Bible says that Jesus loves me. He made me uniquely and he values my uniqueness. Lee taught otherwise. He called our uniquenesses “peculiarities.”

His teaching regarding the self was misleading and in many cases used by him to manipulate people. He taught us that all God wanted was Christ. Verse please? I see that Christ fills all in all, that He is exalted and glorified, that God wants us to love, serve, and hear Him only, and many other things, but God only wants Christ? I don’t see that in Scripture. If God only wanted Christ, well He had Him already, why did He make anything else, including you and me. The truth is God wanted us, you and me. He wanted us so much that He sent Christ to die for us. The gospel is that God loves me and wants me. Lee’s teaching distorts this truth and produces bad fruit in people who try to deny every fiber of what they are, in order to let there be only Christ. Frankly, this teaching produces mental disturbances and even illnesses.

Another potential mental illness producer is the idea that virtues, good works, etc. are nothing if they are not Christ. Here's why. Who can tell if my patience is me or Christ? Can you? Can I? Who can tell if my kindness, or giving, or longsuffering is Christ? Can you? Can I? How can I be sure if when I love it is Christ and not me? If I believe that it is critical that it be only Christ, then I can find myself monitoring my every behavior wondering if it is me or Him. One day I may end up sitting in a mental institution wondering who it is that is sitting there, me or Him. I know an ex Local Churcher who found a good measure of relief from mental suffering by learning it was okay for them to be kind, do good things, etc. without having to determine who it was that was being “expressed.”

I’m not done, but out of time, for the present. If I I get time, I’d like to say more about what OBW and Igzy have brought out about terminology and Lee’s dismissal of verses that sound like “I” am required to do something.

Thus far, I think you will see from what I’ve written that we’re most likely not in agreement.

Thankful Jane

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Lastly, I do not think it is only Christ, as you describe. It is Christ in us. I am not parsing at words. Let me explain. I am important to God. I am in the picture. Lee’s definition of “self” was wrong and resulted in the idea that God did not want anything of us. This is false. The Bible says that Jesus loves me. He made me uniquely and he values my uniqueness. Lee taught otherwise. He called our uniquenesses “peculiarities.”

His teaching regarding the self was misleading and in many cases used by him to manipulate people. He taught us that all God wanted was Christ. Verse please? I see that Christ fills all in all, that He is exalted and glorified, that God wants us to love, serve, and hear Him only, and many other things, but God only wants Christ? I don’t see that in Scripture. If God only wanted Christ, well He had Him already, why did He make anything else, including you and me. The truth is God wanted us, you and me. He wanted us so much that He sent Christ to die for us. The gospel is that God loves me and wants me. Lee’s teaching distorts this truth and produces bad fruit in people who try to deny every fiber of what they are, in order to only let there be only Christ. Frankly, this teaching produces mental disturbances and even illnesses.

Another potential mental illness producer is the idea that virtues, good works, etc. are nothing if they are not Christ. Here's why. Who can tell if my patience is me or Christ? Can you? Can I? Who can tell if my kindness, or giving, or longsuffering is Christ? Can you? Can I? How can I be sure if when I love it is Christ and not me? If I believe that it is critical that it be only Christ, then I can find myself monitoring my every behavior wondering if it is me or Him. One day I may end up sitting in a mental institution wondering who it is that is sitting there, me or Him. I know an ex Local Churcher who found a good measure of relief from mental suffering by learning it was okay for them to be kind, do good things, etc. without having to determine who it was that was being “expressed.”

Boy, you said it, Jane. Preach it sister! Amen, Amen, Amen.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

1. I hear you saying that the final result, whatever that looks like (holiness, virtues, abiding, fruit of the Spirit, righteousness), is all Christ Himself expressed, nothing of us, and that if we agree on that, we are basically in agreement.

Lastly, I do not think it is only Christ, as you describe. It is Christ in us. I am not parsing at words. Let me explain. I am important to God. I am in the picture. Lee’s definition of “self” was wrong and resulted in the idea that God did not want anything of us. This is false. The Bible says that Jesus loves me. He made me uniquely and he values my uniqueness. Lee taught otherwise. He called our uniquenesses “peculiarities.”

His teaching regarding the self was misleading and in many cases used by him to manipulate people. He taught us that all God wanted was Christ. Verse please? I see that Christ fills all in all, that He is exalted and glorified, that God wants us to love, serve, and hear Him only, and many other things, but God only wants Christ? I don’t see that in Scripture. If God only wanted Christ, well He had Him already, why did He make anything else, including you and me. The truth is God wanted us, you and me. He wanted us so much that He sent Christ to die for us. The gospel is that God loves me and wants me. Lee’s teaching distorts this truth and produces bad fruit in people who try to deny every fiber of what they are, in order to let there be only Christ. Frankly, this teaching produces mental disturbances and even illnesses.

Another potential mental illness producer is the idea that virtues, good works, etc. are nothing if they are not Christ. Here's why. Who can tell if my patience is me or Christ? Can you? Can I? Who can tell if my kindness, or giving, or longsuffering is Christ? Can you? Can I? How can I be sure if when I love it is Christ and not me? If I believe that it is critical that it be only Christ, then I can find myself monitoring my every behavior wondering if it is me or Him. One day I may end up sitting in a mental institution wondering who it is that is sitting there, me or Him. I know an ex Local Churcher who found a good measure of relief from mental suffering by learning it was okay for them to be kind, do good things, etc. without having to determine who it was that was being “expressed.”

I’m not done, but out of time, for the present. If I I get time, I’d like to say more about what OBW and Igzy have brought out about terminology and Lee’s dismissal of verses that sound like “I” am required to do something.

Thus far, I think you will see from what I’ve written that we’re most likely not in agreement.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane,

You make some thought-provoking points and I will address those after some consideration.

However, please see my clarification meanwhile. I too agree that terms matter and I also agree that we bring something to the relationship.

Thanks,

[Cassidy]

To include in your response I will provide these points of clarification.

1. I hear you saying that the final result, whatever that looks like (holiness, virtues, abiding, fruit of the Spirit, righteousness), is all Christ Himself expressed, nothing of us, and that if we agree on that, we are basically in agreement.

Almost. I do not say nothing of us. The divine attributes of God are expressed through human virtues. The wild olive branch does not become the cultivated tree for example. It shares the life of the cultivated tree and the two are one constitution..

2. I also hear you saying that terms do not matter that much. What matters is that we end up believing the same thing.

Terms matter. In this instance, it does not if the facts are agreed on. Mingling, co-inherence, mutual indwelling, etc. are similar enough to convey most of the facts.

3. I hear you saying that Witness Lee does not say mingling is all there is, but rather he says that mingling is the way.

Right. If mingling were all there was then there is no need to talk about so many aspects of the christian life or the church which Witness Lee did extensively. Witness Lee returned to the touch point of mingling often because it was the way that we believers experience the life of Christ that will result in all the aspects we talked about. To him if we missed the experience of the life of Christ then we pretty much missed the whole point of the christian life.

I’ll respond to each of these in the next few posts.

Look forward to it.