Nee's 'Ministry to the House or to the Lord'

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

OK. let's walk through this account concerning Mary in Mark 14.

The chapter begins with the chief priests and scribes coming together . . . . ends with Judas and soldiers coming from the chief priests . . . [i]n between these two is Mary anointing Jesus.

I read that to be a fulfillment of Psalm 2:2 "The kings of the earth set themselves . . ."

Now if you read Psalm 2:2 most everyone will readily admit it is referring to the crucifixion of Jesus. . . .

So then, immediately after this anointing they prepare to eat the Passover.

Now according to Paul, Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. . . .

In Mark's record immediately before this passover Mary anoints Jesus body for the burial. . . .

All very true and meaningful. But not in a way that would change the meaning of Ezekiel 44. There is no priority of services designated. Nothing in it that would designate that we can choose one part over another. Or should place the parts in a chronological order. We probably can do that, but it does not provide such a directive.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not forcing these things together, Mark put them together.

As I said to Ohio, if you think that I was trying to dismiss anything about the NT meaning of Mary's service, you are mistaken. I basically set aside the strictly NT analysis to find how it should be meaningful to arrive at Nee's conclusions that he got out of Ezekiel.

And even if you simply admit that Ezekiel 44 doesn't get you there, for all its specific and meaningfulness, I don't see how this story in Mark 14 does it either.

That is what I am saying. If you think I have been saying that Mary's story is irrelevant, then you misunderstood. It is only (as far as I can see) irrelevant to the kind of nearly prescriptive issue of priorities and "choice" of service as laid out in Nee's booklet.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is no quarrel with your statements. You and he have been mistaken as to my complaint.

Originally Posted by OBW

As I said to Ohio, if you think that I was trying to dismiss anything about the NT meaning of Mary's service, you are mistaken. That is what I am saying. If you think I have been saying that Mary's story is irrelevant, then you misunderstood.

With all respect OBW, sometimes I'm just not sure what exactly you are saying, and trying not to assume anything, it's easily to be "mistaken."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

With all respect OBW, sometimes I'm just not sure what exactly you are saying, and trying not to assume anything, it's easily to be "mistaken."

The problem I see with your complaint to me is that you are not addressing what I am addressing, but something else.

I did not say that there is no ministry to God. Whether, as some others have suggested, that prayer is not always in that category, I cannot say.

What I did say was that the assignments in ministry in Ezekiel were based upon past sins of the particular clans, not upon choice. So if there is something to glean from Ezekiel 44, it would be to always be setting your mind and will on the Spirit. And repenting for your failure to always do it (which we will all need all the time).

And at least on portion of my prior posts that you quoted was concerning the nature of an order or priority of ministries by the Levites as a whole. There was surely something different about serving in the inner courts. We probably would equate that in these days to our worship to God, and our prayer (or at least certain parts of it). (BTW. I'm not sure why you had to make a disparaging remark to me about what prayer is. I had not even addressed prayer specifically (if I recall correctly). And in you comment, you acknowledge that some prayer is a kind of request to God. Not sure why it should be treated as something so poor and low as to warrant the comments about "send off to God." That just seems like some old LRC observations about how low Christianity's prayers are.)

But Ezekiel makes no comment about which comes first. It also doles out the lower assignments based on punishment/reward. Surely we are not to view the various aspects of our service/ministry to God in that way. Not in this life. And how would we apply Ezekiel in this day? Pray that God is not finding that my grandfather wasn't much of a follower and sought more after money than after God?

So I request an alternate passage to establish the priority that Nee seems to find in Ezekiel 44. The responses are good passages. But not for the purpose of the current "quest." And I keep getting dissed as if I am dismissing anything about those passages when all I am doing is failing to find a link back to this thing that Nee tried to teach in this little booklet.

It is as if ZNP, and now you, are changing the subject and accusing me of arguing against other things not related to the topic of this thread. I am not arguing against prayer as a ministry. I am not arguing against what the scripture clearly says about what Mary did.

I am arguing that those are not being linked to Nee's assertions. The only commonality is the word "ministry" or even "service." That does not make the instruction in those passages relevant to the question raised by this booklet of Nee.

I am not just trying to disprove Nee and Lee. I am actually quite dumbfounded as to how much I am now seeing Nee as nearly as bad as Lee. The only difference is how he acted toward his followers. He is being seen more and more to have played very loose with scripture. I think he sincerely believed what he was teaching. Probably the same for Lee.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem I see with your complaint to me is that you are not addressing what I am addressing, but something else.

I did not say that there is no ministry to God. Whether, as some others have suggested, that prayer is not always in that category, I cannot say.

What I did say was that the assignments in ministry in Ezekiel were based upon past sins of the particular clans, not upon choice. So if there is something to glean from Ezekiel 44, it would be to always be setting your mind and will on the Spirit. And repenting for your failure to always do it (which we will all need all the time).

I understand your point. The Sons of Zadok learned to minister in the inner court and were entitled to do so because of their father's stance and as a result of their father's lessons.

The other Levites ministered in the outer court because of their forefathers failures.

However, for those of us reading this passage why can't we take this as a warning to make the choices that Zadok made and stand against the choices the other Levites made?

Why can't the lesson that I take today from this passage is to not be swayed by all the foolish priests who say "even if we are wrong as long as we are following Lee we are right"?

Why can't I say that the error was to bring idolatry into the LRC, making WL and WN idols?

How is it any different from where James speaks about not having the faith of our Lord with respect of persons ?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But Ezekiel makes no comment about which comes first. It also doles out the lower assignments based on punishment/reward. Surely we are not to view the various aspects of our service/ministry to God in that way. Not in this life. And how would we apply Ezekiel in this day? Pray that God is not finding that my grandfather wasn't much of a follower and sought more after money than after God?

You have argued that this passage refers to the sons who were not involved in the original sins. But I do not understand why this is so. I read this chapter as a warning. Like looking at a car crash, what caused the crash becomes a warning to me as someone who drives a car.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But Ezekiel makes no comment about which comes first. It also doles out the lower assignments based on punishment/reward. Surely we are not to view the various aspects of our service/ministry to God in that way. Not in this life. And how would we apply Ezekiel in this day? Pray that God is not finding that my grandfather wasn't much of a follower and sought more after money than after God?

You've built up this entire argument that we can ignore the warning because the children were not the ones who went astray. I don't understand this. Why can't this be viewed as a warning to you that taking this path can result in consequences to you and your children after you.

To me, the chapter reveals how God thinks. That is the point. The consequences are merely the evidence that supports this.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is as if ZNP, and now you, are changing the subject and accusing me of arguing against other things not related to the topic of this thread. I am not arguing against prayer as a ministry. I am not arguing against what the scripture clearly says about what Mary did.

Can you provide me with the quote and the post where I "changed the subject and then accused you of arguing against things not related to the topic of this thread."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am arguing that those are not being linked to Nee's assertions. The only commonality is the word "ministry" or even "service." That does not make the instruction in those passages relevant to the question raised by this booklet of Nee.

This is how I understood Ohio's post. You make an assumption as to what the "question" is and then everyone else's comments are off topic, or "changing the subject" or something else.

1. It is not clear, until this post, what the "question" is that you are addressing.
2. You assume that this is "the question" for all of us.

To me, the parts that are discordant in that booklet is the part that UntoHim raised about the self reflection on your personal ministry and the part about being self satisfied.

If the Lord has not revealed to me that there is a problem why do I now need to be introspective as though there is a problem. If the Lord has revealed a problem why can't I deal with that without becoming caught up in this introspection.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If the Lord has not revealed to me that there is a problem why do I now need to be introspective as though there is a problem. If the Lord has revealed a problem why can't I deal with that without becoming caught up in this introspection.

You would have loved the GLA ... we were all inflicted with the disease of introspection.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You would have loved the GLA ... we were all inflicted with the disease of introspection.

The other thing I dislike about this message is that he does not speak from his own experience. He doesn't ever illuminate what he is referring to by his own experience. It is a cloaked message of pointing fingers at others and you have no real idea of what the accusation is.

If this message was shared as a personal experience of failure and repentance I would have felt it was much easier to understand and receive.

Another option is to share a story about a saint similar to Mary anointing the Lord. If you are going to point your finger it should be at Mary, if you are going to call for repentance it should begin with your own.

[OBW]

ZNP,

Yes, there is a warning in there. But the discussion in Nee's booklet was not about the warning. It was about the order of ministry.

I'm trying to stick to talking about what it seems that Nee was talking about. Anywhere else you can take the arguments on other points could be great theology (not meaning that they are dead, just that they are well-founded). But it does not respond to Nee's points.

I seem to have spent a lot of time trying to argue away things that are not what Nee was talking about. It should have been as simple as "could be true and meaningful in its own right, but it is not responsive to Nee's discussion." But it never was. Seems that everyone thought I was trying to dispute the validity of other things. I was not. Just disputing that those other things actually had anything to do with Nee's points.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am not just trying to disprove Nee and Lee. I am actually quite dumbfounded as to how much I am now seeing Nee as nearly as bad as Lee. The only difference is how he acted toward his followers. He is being seen more and more to have played very loose with scripture. I think he sincerely believed what he was teaching. Probably the same for Lee.

I do not feel as extreme as you do, but my esteem of WN has been seriously undermined as of late. The only thing I would object to here is the part about you being "quite dumfounded". Generally I understand that to mean greatly astonished to the point you can't speak, or "found dumb because you have been amazed".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

With all respect OBW, sometimes I'm just not sure what exactly you are saying, and trying not to assume anything, it's easy to be "mistaken."

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem I see with your complaint to me is that you are not addressing what I am addressing, but something else.

If I am saying that you are easily misunderstood at times, then I cannot, by definition, be addressing something you are not addressing, because perhaps I am only mistaken, and not really complaining.