The Gospel Versus "God's Economy"

[TLFisher]

Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, “Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?” But when Jesus heard this, He said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matthew 9:10-13

The local churches practice a different gospel than what's seen in this passage of Matthew 9:10-13. Generally viewed and termed as "good material", attention and efforts are labored on college campuses. One of the goals is to attract college students and eventually sent them as college graduates to FTTA.

[Freedom]

I have mixed feelings on the issue, and I see valid points to both sides. If nothing else, certainly feel that the LCM as a whole is treading in dangerous waters.

The whole idea that they have a distinction between the "low gospel" and the "high gospel" is a big red flag to me. Also, as Terry mentioned, the practice of trying to determine who is the "good material" is contrary to the gospel that Jesus taught and has always been a bit disturbing to me.

The reason that I don't say with certainty that I think the LC teaches another gospel, is because I believe at heart those in the LC are willing to teach the basic gospel to an unbeliever. A lot of what goes on seems situation dependent.

I was involved once in a home meeting that didn't have any of the "good material" type, and that was a positive experience. There were several who were brought to the Lord in that through that home meeting.

With some of the campus work activities that I was involved in, I saw a number of examples of exclusiveness that served as proof in my mind that they weren't concerned with just teaching just the gospel. There were politics at play. There were not-so-hidden agendas that were being carried out. I have mentioned how I was at Bible studies where brothers used the time to try to get newcomers to use the RcV Bible, and it wasn't always clear if some of these newcomers were even saved. Why wasn't this time used to introduce them to the gospel instead?

Another situation I recall is when a college-aged boyfriend/girlfriend couple came to a meeting and out of the blue a brother told them they were best off "dropping the relationship" so they could focus their hearts on the Lord. They never came back . Anyways, from what I've seen, many opportunities where the gospel could have been preached we're ruined by these ideas that other things were necessary, like getting people to use a certain Bible or meddling in someones private life. I don't know how common some of these notions are, but I've seen enough indication that there are many in the LC who are not satisfied with simply introducing someone to the gospel.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

I find no evidence that Lee taught a gospel that is different from the one taught in Galatians.

The "high gospel" vs "low gospel" seems to, despite unusual lingo, fits very well into Paul's presentation of the gospel in Romans which climates in Rom. 8 (esp. v. 29 -- being conformed to the image of the Firstborn Son of God).

The 1,000 years outer darkness, which admittedly is thinly supported but arguably admissible soterio-eschatology, has nothing to do with Lee's presentation of the gospel. People are generally quite charitable on what is acceptable eschatology.

If there is one problem with Lee's presentation of the gospel, it is what is known as "easy-believism". In my locality, the baptism candidates are not asked to renounce their sins nor profess Jesus as Lord and Saviour. They were only tested on whether they call, "O Lord Jesus".

The other things that are brought up in this thread e.g., localism, is irrelevant to Lee's presentation of the gospel. Even LSM has to agree that Titus Chu is a regenerated child of God and will end up in the New Jerusalem.

Interpretations on rewards and punishments and their gradations that don't tantamount to eternal perdition are fair game in all evangelical factions of Christianity.

[aron]

Here's one of my posts from the Arthur M. Casci testimony thread:

Originally Posted by aron

Here's the song I was thinking of earlier:

1. O Lord since time began
You've had one aim, one goal.
Your purpose will and plan
Is centered 'round all man.

New, new, new, Your goal is so new.
Take us Lord possess us to be channels for You.

2. You love to call the young
To carry out Your move,
To leave the old behind,
To have a change in mind.

New, new, new, Your move is so new,
We will be the people with this age-turning view.

3. Don't let us settle down,
Be occupied or set.
But living, open, new,
Fresh, empty, young in You!

New, new, new, Your life is so new,
You're the living One we wholly give ourselves to.

4. You long that Christ Himself,
Be known and realized,
Experienced, expressed,
In a full and living way.

New, new, new, our Christ is so new,
We are here for nothing on this earth but for You.

When did Christ become so old, that He had to become so new?

And if this "new Christ" doesn't care about the poor, the sick, and the weak then He's perhaps a "different Christ", which Paul warned us about. If this was a Christ that said to the rich man "You sit here" and to the poor man, "You sit over there, under my footstool", then this was a different Christ that James 2:1-4 warned about. If this was a new Christ where we elevated men and made distinctions among ourselves, and then ignored righteousness when our "Moses" and "Noah" were found with feet of clay like the rest, what Christ is this? All the excitement and shouting cannot cover a lack of discernment.

Just some things to think about. I'm not trying to present anything definitive here. Just thinking aloud. Asking questions.

I introduced the question if the incessant drumming of a "new Christ" had in fact brought the LCs a "different Christ", which Paul and others had warned about. After some consideration I'd probably say no, it's not a different Christ or a different gospel. But it doesn't overturn the thought that the "cult watchers" deservedly made hay of WL continually preaching a novel Christ. At some point they lumped him in with the wackos like Jim Jones. Even though that was probably unfair, he brought it on by continually saying how new and fresh his gospel was, and how stale and old everyone else's was.

But in reality it was anything but new and fresh, all the re-packaging and re-branding efforts notwithstanding. I say this because I remember the looks on the faces of the LC faithful as the latest "flow" came out of Anaheim. They were the faces of a dispirited people. All the novelty and joy had been sucked away by a ministry and an organization which was anything but new.

WL made a big deal of saying how different his gospel was. But he tried to have it both ways, because he said that WN had read every good Christian book and sorted the wheat from the chaff, and thus had handed the "recovery" a pure gospel which was following the footsteps of the apostles. So WL claimed the LC gospel was fully rooted in the ancient ways, contrary to "Christianity" which had deviated. The problem with this is that it's pure hubris to think that you have read everything worth reading, and have definitively sorted the "kernel" from the "husk", as WL claimed. This was simply a dodge to wave in front of the simple-minded, to be able to simultaneously ignore ancient Christianity while claiming to "closely follow" it. In fact the "new Christ" WL continually trumpeted veered continually from both the spirit and the letter of the gospel.

[OBW]

Let me rearrange some of aron's latest post (which was repeating some of an earlier post by Amcasci??)

Originally Posted by aron

question: if the incessant drumming of a "new Christ" had in fact brought the LCs a "different Christ", which Paul and others had warned about.

. . . .

WL made a big deal of saying how different his gospel was. But he tried to have it both ways, because he said that WN had read every good Christian book and sorted the wheat from the chaff, and thus had handed the "recovery" a pure gospel which was following the footsteps of the apostles. So WL claimed the LC gospel was fully rooted in the ancient ways, contrary to "Christianity" which had deviated.

. . . .

I remember the looks on the faces of the LC faithful as the latest "flow" came out of Anaheim. They were the faces of a dispirited people. All the novelty and joy had been sucked away by a ministry and an organization which was anything but new.

If Lee really had gleaned all the best that was available so as to devise this "new" gospel, coupled with the fat that Lee was supposed to be the one with a direct line to God, then why was there ever any need for the kind of changes in "flow" that were so severe that it shook the very foundations of all that even Lee had been teaching prior to the new flow?

Must be his line was not so direct and his gleaning not so successful.

[Amcasci]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

I find no evidence that Lee taught a gospel that is different from the one taught in Galatians.

The "high gospel" vs "low gospel" seems to, despite unusual lingo, fits very well into Paul's presentation of the gospel in Romans which climates in Rom. 8 (esp. v. 29 -- being conformed to the image of the Firstborn Son of God).

Please explain "high gospel" and "low gospel". These are not familiar to me.

Art

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

Please explain "high gospel" and "low gospel". These are not familiar to me.

Someone will do better, but the low gospel was essentially salvation while the high gospel was the church life. And not just life as a member of the body of Christ, but the life according to the ways of Lee, the LSM and the LCM. Essentially about how we have better meetings and a better lexicon. Probably a lot of other ways it was said, but that pretty much sums it up.

[Amcasci]

Originally Posted by OBW

Someone will do better, but the low gospel was essentially salvation while the high gospel was the church life. And not just life as a member of the body of Christ, but the life according to the ways of Lee, the LSM and the LCM. Essentially about how we have better meetings and a better lexicon. Probably a lot of other ways it was said, but that pretty much sums it up.

Ok...that makes sense and that is precisely what I was getting at in my post on this subject. Preaching another Christ does not meanin denying the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus. It means, "yes, I believe in this jesus but if you want to be a first class christian you need....Judaism, Romanism, Leeism and on it goes. Two tiered christianity is preaching another jesus. There is only one kind of christian, a sinner who is saved by grace alone, through faith alone in christ alone.

Art

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

There is only one kind of christian, a sinner who is saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.

Aren't you covering both the Catholic (in Christ alone) and Protestant (through faith alone) views here?

Is there then only "one kind of christian" combining the two?

In my mind, rallying behind a leader, whether Luther, Darby, Calvin, or Lee, is little difference other than time. The "dangers" seem to diminish as the years go by. In other words, following Luther back in the day labeled you a heretic of the worst sort, but today Lutherans are accepted as orthodox and benign main-streamers. Perhaps being Lee-ites will one day bring about the same responses.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

There is only one kind of christian, a sinner who is saved by grace alone, through faith alone in christ alone.

And that is true . . . as far as it goes. But there are Christians who rest on that fact and basically coast the rest of the way (or at least think that is what they are doing).

I have been thinking concerning the way that "saved by grace" thing is so often taught (though not so much by your branch or Christianity). That is that the emphasis is placed so strongly on the event of "coming to faith" that everything else is nearly ignored. If coming to faith is all there is, then where is the salvation that is worked out with fear and trembling? I did not see it in the LCM (despite the tendency of some of the rhetoric to keep us in fear — fear of failing that paralyzed so many). And while I think I see some of it in the mainstream of evangelicalism, so many of them are set on the idea that it is all simply by grace alone in Christ alone. But Paul said that grace teaches us to obey. It is not only something that provides benefits for which we do nothing. It is the means by which we learn how to do something.

And so many of Paul's writings to the various churches was to get them off of their hind quarters and do what they were supposed to do, whether rejecting the need for OT rituals for salvation, common respect for all believers no matter what heritage or caste, how they treat each other in meetings, what kind of meat they eat, etc. They had to work out how they lived the life that was out of their salvation rather than out of their natural inclinations (or more correctly failings).

The thing that moves us from death to life is a sacrifice that we cannot accomplish. But we must have faith and that does take our will. And your tradition within Christianity primarily teaches a learned salvation. One that is gradual. It begins with someone committing a child to Christ in baptism. (This is not popular among most evangelicals, mostly because they understand baptism in terms of personal decision and testimony — something that can not happen with the baptism of an infant). Then they learn. And at some age, they begin to officially learn the catechism. At the end of it, they are in some way said to be a believer, or confirmed into the church, or something like that. Is that 100% true in all cases? Probably not. But many do come to believe in Christ through all of that. And without any "event" to point to.

But the point in all of that is to show that the new believer has done a lot. But the one thing they have not done is save them self. They cannot save them self. They can come to believe in the One who can save them, and who then will and does save them.

So the question is, did they do any "work" to get there? I would say "yes." But did that work save them? The clear answer is "no." Salvation is only through the death of Christ who paid the final price for our sin. Yet the application of that price to our sin is predicated upon our faith. And faith is more than mental. It is action. We don't believe if we don't live as if we believe.

For that reason, I am actually quite encouraged concerning the salvation of many who have not been raised within evangelicalism's penchant for crisis/event salvation that makes it so cerebral (and sometimes close to meaningless). It may create more emotional events, but does not necessarily get to the real core of the "new believer." Oddly, I am still unlikely to change my affiliation any time soon. At this age, comfort has value and I still find Christ to be strongly proclaimed in a regular and meaningful way. Having said that, I now have the priviledge of worshipping again with an older relative who has moved from the place this forum discusses. So change, even in old age, is not out of the question.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

Ok...that makes sense and that is precisely what I was getting at in my post on this subject. Preaching another Christ does not meanin denying the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus. It means, "yes, I believe in this jesus but if you want to be a first class christian you need....Judaism, Romanism, Leeism and on it goes. Two tiered christianity is preaching another jesus. There is only one kind of christian, a sinner who is saved by grace alone, through faith alone in christ alone.

OBW completely misrepresented Lee's high gospel vs. low gospel. The "low gospel" is believe in Jesus and you'll go to heaven. The "high gospel" is as taught in the conference "God's Complete Salvation" (circa 1995-6), and transcribed into a book by the same name. Link to diagramme: http://www.godssalvation.org/diagram/index.html

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

I find no evidence that Lee taught a gospel that is different from the one taught in Galatians.

Except for:

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

I can't speak for you, of course, but I can speak for my self and others that I know, that have left the LC, and I and them agree that we were bewitched by Lee.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by awareness

Except for:

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

I can't speak for you, of course, but I can speak for my self and others that I know, that have left the LC, and I and them agree that we were bewitched by Lee.

Lee bewitched you into believing that there are other criteria to being saved other than placing faith in Jesus Christ who was crucified for our sins?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Please show what else Witness Lee taught as necessary to salvation from hell other than faith in Jesus Christ? I want quotes, books, etc. Not caricatures or secondary issues.

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Lee bewitched you into believing that there are other criteria to being saved other than placing faith in Jesus Christ who was crucified for our sins?

In the book of Galatians, Paul used the phrase "different gospel" (Gal 1.6) in relation to Judaizers who made a show of the gentile converts by insisting that they be circumcised, celebrate the Jewish holidays, etc. which brought them under the bondage of the law. To the Corinthians, Paul spoke of "another Jesus, whom he did not preach," (II Cor 11.4)

Before we categorically apply this same judgment used by Paul on the LC's, i.e. "let them be accursed" (Gal 1.8-9), can we please provide some definitive evidence, as InOmnibusCaritas has requested, supporting your case? No doubt, Lee and LSM had issues, but this claim was never one of them.

One verse which we have not discussed much on this forum, and which may have significance, is Paul's word in II Cor 11.13, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transfiguring themselves into apostles of Christ."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the book of Galatians, Paul used the phrase "different gospel" (Gal 1.6) in relation to Judaizers who made a show of the gentile converts by insisting that they be circumcised, celebrate the Jewish holidays, etc. which brought them under the bondage of the law. To the Corinthians, Paul spoke of "another Jesus, whom he did not preach," (II Cor 11.4)

Before we categorically apply this same judgment used by Paul on the LC's, i.e. "let them be accursed" (Gal 1.8-9), can we please provide some definitive evidence, as InOmnibusCaritas has requested, supporting your case? No doubt, Lee and LSM had issues, but this claim was never one of them.

One verse which we have not discussed much on this forum, and which may have significance, is Paul's word in II Cor 11.13, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transfiguring themselves into apostles of Christ."

These verses in II Corinthians Chapter 11 have me rethinking the our "query" into what Lee preached and who Lee was. The sections in red are troublesomely representative of Lee ...

1 Would that ye could bear with me in a little foolishness: but indeed ye do bear with me.
2 For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ.
4 For if he that comes preaches another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if ye receive a different spirit, which ye did not receive, or a different gospel, which ye did not accept, ye do well to bear with him.
5 For I reckon that I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
6 But though I be rude in speech, yet am I not in knowledge; nay, in every way have we made this manifest unto you in all things.
7 Or did I commit a sin in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I preached to you the gospel of God for nought?
8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you;
9 and when I was present with you and was in want, I was not a burden on any man; for the brethren, when they came from Macedonia, supplied the measure of my want; and in everything I kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.
10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this glorying in the regions of Achaia.
11 Wherefore? because I love you not? God knows.
12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting.
13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for even Satan fashioned himself into an angel of light.
15 It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works.
16 I say again, let no man think me foolish; but if ye do, yet as foolish receive me, that I also may glory a little.
17 That which I speak, I speak not after the Lord, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of glorying.
18 Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.
19 For ye bear with the foolish gladly, being wise yourselves .
20 For you bear with a man, though he brings you into bondage, if he devours you, if he takes you captive , if he exalts himself, if he smites you on the face.

What is so troublesome here is Lee's obsession to be elevated to the status of apostle on par with Paul, yet has brought us into bondage, and has smitten many a brother in the process.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The whole idea that they have a distinction between the "low gospel" and the "high gospel" is a big red flag to me. Also, as Terry mentioned, the practice of trying to determine who is the "good material" is contrary to the gospel that Jesus taught and has always been a bit disturbing to me.

The reason that I don't say with certainty that I think the LC teaches another gospel, is because I believe at heart those in the LC are willing to teach the basic gospel to an unbeliever. A lot of what goes on seems situation dependent.

I would say if pressed in the local churches, the gospel we see in the New Testament is taught, however practices indicate having distinctions and preferences.
As a result it's the ones seeking higher education are the ones sought after in the campus gospel work. Ones who forego a college education aren't seen as "good material" and as a result are often neglected.
Why is it college students are deemed "good material"?
Is it potential of higher income translates to more giving for the ministry?
Is it higher education equates to better grasp of the "high gospel" and thus embracing the vision Witness Lee's ministry has been promoting?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

I would say if pressed in the local churches, the gospel we see in the New Testament is taught, however practices indicate having distinctions and preferences.
As a result it's the ones seeking higher education are the ones sought after in the campus gospel work. Ones who forego a college education aren't seen as "good material" and as a result are often neglected.
Why is it college students are deemed "good material"?
Is it potential of higher income translates to more giving for the ministry?
Is it higher education equates to better grasp of the "high gospel" and thus embracing the vision Witness Lee's ministry has been promoting?

Maybe it is a quest for a form of legitimacy through the association with and acceptance by college-educated people.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In my mind, rallying behind a leader, whether Luther, Darby, Calvin, or Lee, is little difference other than time. The "dangers" seem to diminish as the years go by. In other words, following Luther back in the day labeled you a heretic of the worst sort, but today Lutherans are accepted as orthodox and benign main-streamers. Perhaps being Lee-ites will one day bring about the same responses.

Some really good responses here! So many I'll have to take them one by one!

Ohio makes a good point about how certain teachers and teachings are viewed as heretical in their day, but eventually make their way into the mainstream of what is considered orthodox. Of course we may want to look at just who was calling Luther a heretic, and why they were calling him a heretic. Luther's accusers and detractors were the Pope, his learned archbishops and clerics, and none other than the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire - none of which anybody could even faintly claim were the strong promoters of or even defenders of the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the central truths found in the New Testament. Just why they were after Luther is quite a bit more involved and complicated, but it was not for his preaching of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, or even for teaching any of the central truths found in the NT per se, but mostly for his decrying of the rampant hypocrisy among the Catholic clergy.

So, over the years, who have been the most vocal and harshest accusers and detractors of Witness Lee/LSM/LC? Well, it has undeniably been a mixed bag, and to just name them all, much less get into the distracting and fruitless business of critiquing the critics, would be a worthless time drain and would inevitably take us away from the question at hand. I would, however, at the risk of being Captain Obvious, point out that comparing Witness Lee to Luther, Calvin or even Darby, in any sense of comparison I could imagine, is just about the biggest apple to oranges correlation I've heard in a while. We've just seen the likes of who was calling Luther (and Calvin) heretical, and I don't think any Christian apologists were calling Darby a heretic. Furthermore, the view of the vast majority of orthodox, evangelical Christians hasn't really changed much over the centuries. Luther and Calvin are still regarded as pillars of the Christian reformation, and Darby was more known for calling other people heretics than being called one himself.

Perhaps being Lee-ites will one day bring about the same responses.

Maybe from highly compromised "apologists" like Hank Hanegraaff, but I doubt you will hear anything like "we were wrong" from the likes of the 75 Christian scholars and ministry leaders from seven nations who signed the Open Letter at http://www.open-letter.org/- most of them have probably seen and heard too much about what Witness Lee actually taught to swallow the "but we are actually just misunderstood orthodox Christians" ruse.