The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee's system was derived from that [Asian] culture, and to some degree reflected that culture. But since he assured us it was "heavenly", we took it.

The quote above approaches what I'm discussing, and I want to continue this by considering a small portion of scripture. I've been writing about Lee's treatment of the Psalms; probably 3/4 of them are either ignored by him without comment, or rejected as "natural" and "fallen".

I'll cite one passage and make my argument.

Psalm 1 1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
whatever they do prospers.

Look at verse 3 "...a tree planted by streams of water... yields its fruit in season... its leaf does not wither". Does that perhaps suggest the vision seen in Revelation 22:2?

"...On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations."

We probably can't definitively say whether this passage referenced Psalm 1 in any way, but in my memory Lee categorically rejected Psalm 1 simply because it had the word "law", and we post-Reformation Christians all know that salvation is of grace, not law! So the whole chapter, like much of the book, was simply dismissed out of hand. No attempt was made to discern any deeper, spiritual meaning. No consideration of whether Christ to some degree fulfilled the psalmist's vision. Nope; the text was "fallen", and nothing but "natural concepts".

Now, my point is this: whether Psalm 1 is related to Revelation 22 I probably can't 'prove' in some objective sense; but we saw Lee build a system where, if he didn't consider something, then we didn't consider it. We didn't have the freedom to think, to speak, to consider, and to reason in scripture with one another. It was, "Big Brother says 'X', therefore reality is 'X'".

If Lee shut the door on a portion of the Bible, then we weren't allowed to open it, and look, and consider. I say that this is wrong. I say that if the Spirit leads me to consider something in the Bible, I am going to consider it. And if the Spirit leads me to talk about something I see in the Bible, I am going to discuss it. And if that system rejects my desire to talk about Christ in such passages of the Bible, then I will reject that system.

I really don't know why Lee dismissed the Psalms. Perhaps because through them "degraded Christianity" was supplying the Local Church saints with fresh musical enjoyment, and this threatened his "local ground" hegemony. Lee therefore told us the Psalms were "low", in contrast to the "high revelation" of Paul in the NT.* And Lee said that David's visions were mostly vain, despite contrary evidence supplied by the NT writers. Nonetheless, in the Local Church system we knew that if Lee rejected something, then we must reject it. So we therefore rejected the bulk of Psalms because God's present oracle had told us to. We had to follow God's present oracle, in an absolute and unquestioning way, because we were convinced that this was necessary for us to be God's "heavenly army" that would take over the earth.

I don't know if this is making any sense, but looking back, that's what I see. It was a miracle that one day I walked away! I was immersed in a culture in which "the church life" was held as "a better way" (I remember a line from the song, 'We love the church life' - "it may be with us you've found a better way"), yet after years of such strong conditioning I still walked out... I do thank God for His mercy.

Lee built a system in which, if he rejected a possible OT connection to a NT revelation of Christ, then we also had to. If we openly considered any scriptural meaning apart from Lee's directives, and persisted in so doing, then we would be considered a threat to the orderly functioning of his "church life" and we would be removed (as Terry put it euphemistically, "steps were taken"). To me that is the orderliness of a museum, or a graveyard. It may indeed be orderly, and well-regulated, but it is also quite dead.

*And yet in Colossians and Ephesians Paul urged his readers to sing the Psalms!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I really don't know why Lee dismissed the Psalms.

aron, another determining factor in Lee's theology was his roots with the Plymouth Brethren in England. The exclusive Brethren were obsessed with "finding Christ" in the Old Testament, to the point they would totally miss the obvious lessons in the narrative. This was, of course, not a Chinese cultural matter.

If Lee and his helpers could not "find Christ" in the old exclusive Brethren writings, whether in types, shadows, figures, prophecies, or quotes, then, especially in the books of Psalms, Lee would dismiss them as "natural sentiment" or some such thing.

Searching for Christ in the OT is obviously a rewarding and enriching study, but obsessing over this method to the extent that vast portions of scripture are summarily dismissed is beyond the pale of the normal Christian faith. In this regard, Lee attempted to lead the whole of the Recovery "where no man has gone before."

[awareness]

Boy Aron in post #362 you said it all. I'm speechless. I think we can rest your case.

And like UntoHim queried, is it "Nuff said?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Boy Aron in post #362 you said it all... I think we can rest your case.

Thank you for politely encouraging me to stop writing!

But I do appreciate your kind reception to my ideas, and have been grateful that there's a place where we can think out loud.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Thank you for politely encouraging me to stop writing!

Yeah, what am I thinking? I love your writings. That would be cheating myself. Please don't.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

in my memory Lee categorically rejected Psalm 1 simply because it had the word "law", and we post-Reformation Christians all know that salvation is of grace, not law! So the whole chapter, like much of the book, was simply dismissed out of hand. No attempt was made to discern any deeper, spiritual meaning. No consideration of whether Christ to some degree fulfilled the psalmist's vision. Nope; the text was "fallen", and nothing but "natural concepts".

We can say that Psalm 1 and Psalm 2 are a related pair, introducing the whole book that follows. Psalm 1 shows the two paths: the path of the wicked leads to destruction, and the path of the righteous leads to life everlasting. Then Psalm 2 shows us "My king, whom I have installed on My holy mountain." In unveiling God's obedient, reigning Son, Psalm 2 is the full expression of Psalm 1. God's ordained path of righteousness in Psalm 1 is not vain to us, but rather we see it fulfilled in the reigning Son of God in Psalm 2. We fail, but we are told to "kiss the Son", who does not fail. Marvelous! What a blessing!

But Witness Lee shaved Psalm 1 off from Psalm 2, and in so doing he exposed himself. We Christians believe that we know the reigning Son in Psalm 2; likewise we can surmise something of the "blessed man" in Psalm 1. And this man, who meditates on the word both day and night, and is utterly obedient, even to the death of the cross, is perhaps none other than the Word of God Himself. And we are told in scripture that when we believe into him, and obey his commands, we ourselves become heirs of the promised blessing.

It is probably not coincidental that John 14-17 repeatedly has Jesus speaking about the word, his commands, our obedience, and the coming Spirit. To me these are all of apace. The story in John 21 on shepherding is the coda; the speaking on the final night is the complete ministry.

"In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe."

The angel Gabriel told Mary, "No word from God will ever fail." Psalm 1 is a word spoken from God through a prophet, who is borne by the Holy Spirit. Yes we failed; I have read Romans 2 and 3. I understand. But Jesus did not fail, but overcame. On this victory arguably rests our hope, and our faith. No human, earthly ministry should cause us to turn our attention away from Jesus Christ.

[aron]

Here is a quote from a website of a brother who used to meet in the LCM:

Brother Witness Lee said that one of the requirements for the Lord to come back is a great revival in which many saints live the life of the God-man Jesus. (Rev. 19:7)

Where do we see the God-man living in the Bible? In the gospels there is the perfect model, the life of Jesus, impossible to imitate. In the epistles we see a little of the life of Paul, the apostle, but we all are not apostles. I especially love Acts 27, where we see Paul as a prisoner on a shipwreck-bound ship. Here Paul is not a great apostle, but a normal Christian, bringing everyone on the ship before the Lord and practically caring for them. We can be the same at our jobs and in our neighborhoods.

The most details of the God-man living through imperfect men is in the Psalms. The more I enjoy the Psalms, the more I see the Lord's life on earth was one with the Psalms.

http://www.voiceinwilderness.info/psalms.htm

The Lord Jesus lived out the Father's word: "As in heaven, so on earth". The details are often seen right there in the Psalms. But Lee missed this. The saints were singing, and the Spirit was moving, and Lee got scared and ran away. He tried to chase us away, by publicly shaming the psalm-singers, but really he revealed that he was running away. The light was getting too intense and he wasn't comfortable; this wasn't part of the Watchman Nee model! So his denigrating the Psalms was his fleeing from the face of God.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Thanks very much for reading my website, Aron.
I still meet with the local church in Detroit. We have not been affiliated with LSM since around 2007. We have fellowship with the other non-LSM LC's in the Great Lakes area, especially in Michigan.

In my Bible reading for today (I am following Robert Murray M'Cheyne's Bible reading schedule, which has me read in 1 year: OT, 2xNT, 2xPsalms.), I read Mary's praise to the Lord in Luke 1:46-55. How could she have been so eloquent? She must have been constituted with the Psalms, probably by singing and enjoying them.

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Mary's praise to the Lord in Luke 1:46-55. How could she have been so eloquent? She must have been constituted with the Psalms, probably by singing and enjoying them.

Your phrase "being constituted with the Psalms" is equivalent to Paul's "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" in Col 3:16 (they were urged to allow this rich indwelling by singing Psalms), also paralleling Paul's "Christ dwelling in your hearts" in Eph 3:17, and his "Christ in you the hope of glory" in Col 1:27.

Not to mention the companion verse "being filled in Spirit" by singing Psalms (Eph 5:18) akin to "the Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead indwelling your mortal bodies and giving you life" in Rom 8:10,11.

All this "Spirit filling you" and "Christ indwelling you" sounds like WL's "God's economy", or a good part of it. Why couldn't WL grok this? What's so complicated about simply being filled up with the word of Christ? Sing, yo - don't analyze so much!

Reminds me of the LC parable back in the day: "Hunky and Dory in the land of food". WL talked about being filled with the word of Christ, while actually avoiding the very words that Paul referenced. (And I don't claim to be filled myself, or to have a "rich indwelling"... but at least I'm learning, slowly, slowly.)

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by aron

Your phrase "being constituted with the Psalms" is equivalent to Paul's "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" in Col 3:16 (they were urged to allow this rich indwelling by singing Psalms), also paralleling Paul's "Christ dwelling in your hearts" in Eph 3:17, and his "Christ in you the hope of glory" in Col 1:27.

Not to mention the companion verse "being filled in Spirit" by singing Psalms (Eph 5:18) akin to "the Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead indwelling your mortal bodies and giving you life" in Rom 8:10,11.

Wow! That's great. I had not put that together.

Originally Posted by aron

All this "Spirit filling you" and "Christ indwelling you" sounds like WL's "God's economy", or a good part of it. Why couldn't WL grok this? What's so complicated about simply being filled up with the word of Christ? Sing, yo - don't analyze so much!

I think WL got it, but then lost it. I think the problem was that the LC quickly got to a place where no one could correct WL. Everyone needs correction.

Originally Posted by aron

Reminds me of the LC parable back in the day: "Hunky and Dory in the land of food". WL talked about being filled with the word of Christ, while actually avoiding the very words that Paul referenced. (And I don't claim to be filled myself, or to have a "rich indwelling"... but at least I'm learning, slowly, slowly.)

At first WL meant to be filled with the actual Word. Then his writings became "better than" the Word. It is better to be filled with the "interpreted word" or the "digested word" rather than the pure word.
The Hunky Dory parable helped us to enjoy the word. It eventually led to problems because we didn't go on from there. There was this unwritten concept that we should just eat the Word but not try to do any of it unless the leadership said to.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

At first WL meant to be filled with the actual Word. Then his writings became "better than" the Word. It is better to be filled with the "interpreted word" or the "digested word" rather than the pure word.

I honestly think that Lee considered everything he taught to be from the actual Word. From the beginning to the end. But as we have begun to see in other discussions, both Nee and Lee incorrectly understood what the Word was teaching. They passed on their culture as the best Christian living. And they bought into some of the most divisive teachings of prior generations as teachings of unity.

I am convinced that Lee believed what he taught. And that he was blinded by his bias and culture to seeing the true teachings of the Word. This is seen most evidently in the idea that the Christian is not to do anything but just let life do it for you. This is not taught anywhere. But Lee taught it because his own experience was that he couldn't recon himself dead (for example).

Why did he despise the book of James so much? Probably because it pierced through his lack of growth in character. So spirituality had to become a substitute for character and righteousness.

He made a big deal of the Sermon on the Mount as being the Kingdom's Constitution, yet how much of his teaching in other places refused the idea of hungering and thirsting for righteousness and instead hungering and thirsting for dispensing so that one day righteousness would just happen without thinking about it. If that is the way it actually works, you don't have to think about it, much less hunger and thirst for it.

And I am becoming more and more convinced that even Nee's writings are polluted with somewhat less obvious substitutions. Nee may never have taken the positions that Lee did, but he still had a skewed vision of the Word of God. It is never more evident than when reading Authority and Submission (Spiritual Authority). His obvious mishandling of the Word of God in the opening chapter opened the doorway for him to create a false overlay for the rest of the book — the idea that authority and submission are some overarching principle to understand everything else by. But the verses he uses in the first chapter do not mention authority. So Nee retranslates power into authority. Not an A = B fact. Not even an A = B, and B = C, therefore A = C fact. Instead a replacement because he said it was so. But it is not. Yet we bought it.

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

The Hunky Dory parable helped us to enjoy the word. It eventually led to problems because we didn't go on from there. There was this unwritten concept that we should just eat the Word but not try to do any of it unless the leadership said to.

This little parable was cute. The whole of it created the impression that the Word of God was not to be considered, pondered, reasoned with, or learned, but just absorbed by eating. And eating was declared not to be learning about it, or studying it, but simply chewing on it.

I do not know when that was first published in The Stream, but if the time I saw it was the original, it was no earlier than late 72 if not early 73. And the mode of "eating" was never more obvious than the times of morning watch when verses were seldom read more than once, then chopped into one to three word fragments and "eaten" by repeating those little bits, punctuated with "Oh Lord," "amen," "hallelujah," or other similarly short phrase that is not part of the verse until you have spent sufficient time turning a meaningful sentence into a few paragraphs of unintelligible pureed soup.

You can say that the ingredients and nutrients are there and that it therefore represents "eating" the Word of God. But that is true only if the metaphor of eating the Word is meant to be milked for every possible similarity to eating that you can find. If it meant that the collection of words into sentences and paragraphs and whole discourses of thought are of no real consequence and the random slicing and dicing and rearranging and repeating of them with other words interspersed is of benefit to us, then what was actually written was really not important.

And using any collection of random words should be able to achieve the same result.

Unfortunately, that is sometimes what Lee thought. Maybe not because he didn't like what it actually said, but because he was blinded by what he wanted it to say, and therefore did not take due care for what it actually said.

And when your only solid base of truth — the Word — has been obliterated into puree, how do we ever really understand what it is that the Word is speaking to us? Or it is accepted as really meaning whatever Lee said? We were convinced that considering the words as words in phrases, sentences, and paragraphs was anathema to the correct understanding of it all, so we did not challenge anyone's rendition of anything. Or rather we only challenged everyone except Lee. For Lee, it was time to shout "hallelujah" rather than actually read it and ask "where did you get that?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

At first WL meant to be filled with the actual Word. Then his writings became "better than" the Word. It is better to be filled with the "interpreted word" or the "digested word" rather than the pure word... There was this unwritten concept that we should just eat the Word but not try to do any of it unless the leadership said to.

Eventually the "interpreted word" was able to tell us what of the "pure word" was profitable. In the beginning of this thread, I noted that of the first 21 Psalms, maybe 3 of them were held to display God's Christ in some form. (Ps 2,8,16) The rest were at best taking up space. At worst, WL charged them with misleading the reader! As if pleasing God were impossible, and a waste of effort!

Um, sorry, but no... you see, there's this guy, you may have heard of Him, named Jesus. God said, "This is my Beloved Son, in whom I delight". God delighted in His Incarnate Son. Look at Psalm 18 -- "He (the Father) rescued Me (Jesus) because He (the Father) delighted in Me (Jesus)." But to WL, Psalm 18 was just David the vain boaster.

And OUR righteousness is to believe into Jesus the Righteous. But what if your "interpreted word" tells you not to see Jesus, but to either see David (being vain), or the NT believer who is now approved before God? There is a big hole in the middle. Without the incarnated Word the whole thing falls apart, to me. And WL gutted it, effectively, of this vision. I find it inexplicable. Unless he was self-deluded, and threatened by any "revelation" which might arise independently from him, and draw attention away from his ministry.

So you'd get these rather large stretches that passed without comment, save for a reproving note or two from "the oracle". No footnote, no cross-reference, nothing.

And this was now the interpretive standard in the LC. If WL passed over it, how dare any from the rank-and-file find Christ there! So the "interpreted word" effectively shut the door on the "pure word". And Paul's encouragement to let the Word of Christ dwell in us richly (via Psalms, notably) got turned on its head: we were either to focus on the "pure word" of Paul's epistles, or the "interpreted word" of Lee. In either case the foundational understanding that Paul and the NT writers had held, from the OT, was erased.

Of course there were other areas, Bretheren-style, where WL teased visions of "Christ" out of every type and shadow the OT offered him. But if he didn't want to find Christ, then his readers/followers were shut off. Because you didn't want to be "independent" and see something "the oracle" didn't see.

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

The Hunky Dory parable helped us to enjoy the word. It eventually led to problems because we didn't go on from there. There was this unwritten concept that we should just eat the Word but not try to do any of it unless the leadership said to.

Right. We should pray-read Paul's epistles, including the parts where he encouraged us to sing Psalms, remember the poor, etc. But if leadership isn't actually recommending that we do any of it, we'd better not take initiative. Yep, it's all Hunky Dory in LC-land: we can pray-read it, then we can ignore it.