Blending

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Okay, for example, in "Raising Up the Next Generation for the Church Life", Lee says:

"God has blended the Body together (1 Cor. 12:24).The word blended also means adjusted, harmonized, tempered, and mingled. God has blended the Body, adjusted the Body, harmonized the Body, tempered the Body, and mingled the Body. The Greek word for blended implies the losing of distinctions. One brother's distinction may be quickness, and another's may be slowness. But in the Body life the slowness disappears and the quickness is taken away. All such distinctions are gone."

So here he claims the Greek word implies the losing of distinctions. How is it possible for someone who doesn't know Greek to know if that is true or if Lee is just saying whatever he wants to say?

The word blended and Lee's description seems accurate to me:

Gill's commentary says:

but God hath tempered the body together; he hath composed it in such a forth, constituted it in such an order, mixed and united all its parts in such a manner, as that they are all beneficial to each other

The NET bible says:

"but our presentable members do not need this. Instead, God has blended together the body, giving greater honor to the lesser member,"

https://biblehub.com/lexicon/1_corinthians/12-24.htm

That blending leads to loss of distinctions is just common sense. If you blend anything together the components lose their individual distinctiveness. Rich or poor, English speaking or Chinese, when everyone comes together in Christ and speaks Christ, the differences in wealth or language of individuals becomes less distinctive.

As a related side note - Lee's use of the terms blended or mingled were not introduced by him - many references to these terms can be found in Christianity, so it is not that Lee invented anything new, but that Christianity in general is in ignorance of what is written in their own theological literature.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That blending leads to loss of distinctions is just common sense. If you blend anything together the components lose their individual distinctiveness. Rich or poor, English speaking or Chinese, when everyone comes together in Christ and speaks Christ, the differences in wealth or language of individuals becomes less distinctive.

I disagree completely. The preceding verses in the chapter describe a whole slew of distinctions (gifts, ministries, operations, word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, operations of works of power, prophecy, discerning of spirits, various kinds of tongues, interpretation of tongues), followed by the repeated statement "yet the same Spirit/Lord/God". Verse 11 even says "But the one and the same Spirit operates all these things, distributing to each one even as He purposes", referring the distinctions mentioned in the verses before it!!

The whole point is that there are distinctions, YET THE SAME SPIRIT. There is nothing about losing distinctions. I'll say it again - there is nothing there about losing distinctions.

We can even see thus - as the passage then turns to compare to a physical body, how is it remotely possible for different members of a physical body (the eye, the ear, the hand, the foot) to lose their distinctiveness? It is impossible! This passage, or even just verse 24, is not about losing distinctions, no sir, no how. It is all about, as Ohio and others have said, giving honor to the less comely members and how to give more abundant honor to those weaker around us.

JJ's comment about the fact that God has blended the body together was also so phenomenal:
1. Who has done it? God!
2. What has He done? Blended/put together/composed/tempered the body!
3. Has He already done it? Yep! The verse says so.
4. Does the verse say we need to do it? Nope!

So all the talk in the LCs about needing to blend actually misses the whole point. God has done the blending already SO THAT the weaker/uncomely ones would be taken care of. In the LCs you can "blend with the brothers" or "go on blending trips" and accomplish absolutely zero of what the verse is about. You can "blend with the bros" but there be no care for weaker members. You can "go on blending trips" but never cloak any uncomely member with more honor. We don't need "to blend" - God has done that. We need to care for those whom God has placed around us.

Amazing!

[Evangelical]

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Romans 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.

[Kevin]

The losing of distinctions in the LCM has gone way beyond to outward conformities or simply as WL tape recorders.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Romans 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.

Evangelical, you need to "Get out of your mind, and turn to your spirit."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical, you need to "Get out of your mind, and turn to your spirit."

I think that's the point - in the Spirit there is no distinctions.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think that's the point - in the Spirit there is no distinctions.

If there are no distinctions in the Spirit, then why did Paul, writing according to the Spirit, write of "gentile churches" in Romans 16:4? Why did he tell husbands to love their wives if there is no male or female? Why did he tell slaves to obey their masters if there is no slave or free?

And for that matter, the LSM contradict themselves by making distinctions. In the FTTA our trainer told us to avoid widows and orphans and spend our time recruiting Caucasian college students.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

If there are no distinctions in the Spirit, then why did Paul, writing according to the Spirit, write of "gentile churches" in Romans 16:4? Why did he tell husbands to love their wives if there is no male or female? Why did he tell slaves to obey their masters if there is no slave or free?
And for that matter, the LSM contradict themselves by making distinctions. In the FTTA our trainer told us to avoid widows and orphans and spend our time recruiting Caucasian college students.

It's a fine argument in the proper context - I used that one in discussion about the role of women in the church, if you recall, however, I don't think Lee had in mind to "blend away our gender" or blend away church authority or family structures.

The salvation of unsaved ones on campus surely rates higher priority than caring for the physical needs of widows and orphans of which there are plenty of charities willing and able to help. Even the apostle Paul prioritized preaching over baptism.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Romans 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.

Oh for heaven's sake.....

Romans 10:12 is just saying that the Lord doesn't discriminate ..... whoever calls on Him, whether Jew or Greek, receives the same Lord. And it takes the same thing - calling on Him - for both of them for the Lord to bestow His riches upon them. It certainly doesn't mean all their distinctiveness has disappeared or has been/will be blended away. Don't add to a verse what isn't there!

E.g. If I own a restaurant and I say there is no distinction between red-shirt and green-shirt wearers who walk up, and that all will receive food if they say my name at the door, it certainly doesn't mean once they walk through the doors their red shirt and green shirted distinctions will disappear or be blended away......

Galatians 3:28 is clearly naming three very significant divisions/disparities/inequities in society - social class, slavery, and gender - and yet we are all one in Christ. "The same Lord" as mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:24! But obviously, EvanG, there are other distinctions among persons besides these three mentioned, and there still is in no way an implication that all these many other, varied, wide-ranging distinctions are to be "blended away".

Edit to say this: Yes, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female. I am not dismissing or belittling that for it is so wonderful. But these distinctions mentioned in Galatians 3:28 are different from the ones mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12 and do not negate them.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

So all the talk in the LCs about needing to blend actually misses the whole point. God has done the blending already SO THAT the weaker/uncomely ones would be taken care of. In the LCs you can "blend with the brothers" or "go on blending trips" and accomplish absolutely zero of what the verse is about. You can "blend with the bros" but there be no care for weaker members. You can "go on blending trips" but never cloak any uncomely member with more honor. We don't need "to blend" - God has done that. We need to care for those whom God has placed around us.

In my experience in LSM church they cared little for covering the uncomely ones but for the so-called good building material.

If there are no distinctions then why is Paul referring to gentile churches in Romans 16:4? If there is neither male or female why is he telling husbands to love wives?

"Everyone must be the same" in LSM is code for, "Everyone must be the same as Witness Lee".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I disagree completely. The preceding verses in the chapter describe a whole slew of distinctions (gifts, ministries, operations, word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, operations of works of power, prophecy, discerning of spirits, various kinds of tongues, interpretation of tongues), followed by the repeated statement "yet the same Spirit/Lord/God". Verse 11 even says "But the one and the same Spirit operates all these things, distributing to each one even as He purposes", referring the distinctions mentioned in the verses before it!!

The whole point is that there are distinctions, YET THE SAME SPIRIT. There is nothing about losing distinctions. I'll say it again - there is nothing there about losing distinctions.

We can even see thus - as the passage then turns to compare to a physical body, how is it remotely possible for different members of a physical body (the eye, the ear, the hand, the foot) to lose their distinctiveness? It is impossible! This passage, or even just verse 24, is not about losing distinctions, no sir, no how. It is all about, as Ohio and others have said, giving honor to the less comely members and how to give more abundant honor to those weaker around us.

JJ's comment about the fact that God has blended the body together was also so phenomenal:
1. Who has done it? God!
2. What has He done? Blended/put together/composed/tempered the body!
3. Has He already done it? Yep! The verse says so.
4. Does the verse say we need to do it? Nope!

So all the talk in the LCs about needing to blend actually misses the whole point. God has done the blending already SO THAT the weaker/uncomely ones would be taken care of. In the LCs you can "blend with the brothers" or "go on blending trips" and accomplish absolutely zero of what the verse is about. You can "blend with the bros" but there be no care for weaker members. You can "go on blending trips" but never cloak any uncomely member with more honor. We don't need "to blend" - God has done that. We need to care for those whom God has placed around us.

Amazing!

The gifts are operations of the same and one Spirit so it is strange for you to argue that they are distinct from one another.

As a practical example, there is little difference between gift of healing/miracles and gift of faith, or gift of tongues and gift of interpretation. Gift of teaching and gift of prophecy are also closely related. Discernment and word of knowledge is also very similar. They are all just operations of the one and same Spirit so this is an example of no distinctions.

[Evangelical]

I think some people including Trapped have missed the point about blending.

Blending is just a fancy word used in the recovery for fellowship. But blending means something spiritually deeper because of the unity we have in Christ. In modern useage, the word fellowship has been hijacked to refer to any social gathering of Christians.

1 Cor. 12:24 gives us a reason for blending, for fellowship. God has blended us together spiritually in Christ (Gal 3:28), and for this reason we should blend together practically.

Given that the words blending and fellowship can be used interchangeably, this is Trapped's statement about not needing blending if you replace the word blend/ing with fellowship/ing (in bold).


So all the talk in the LCs about needing to fellowship actually misses the whole point. God has done the fellowshipping already SO THAT the weaker/uncomely ones would be taken care of. In the LCs you can "fellowship with the brothers" or "go on fellowshipping trips" and accomplish absolutely zero of what the verse is about. You can "fellowship with the bros" but there be no care for weaker members. You can "go on fellowshipping trips" but never cloak any uncomely member with more honor. We don't need "to fellowship " - God has done that. We need to care for those whom God has placed around us.

Now his paragraph does not make much sense. I don't think that Paul intended 1 Cor. 12:24 to mean that God has done the fellowshipping for us, so we don't have to. And caring for weaker members is done through fellowship.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The gifts are operations of the same and one Spirit so it is strange for you to argue that they are distinct from one another.
As a practical example, there is little difference between gift of healing/miracles and gift of faith, or gift of tongues and gift of interpretation. Gift of teaching and gift of prophecy are also closely related. Discernment and word of knowledge is also very similar. They are all just operations of the one and same Spirit so this is an example of no distinctions.

I am not the one arguing they are distinct, the apostle Paul laid them out very clearly as being distinct by literally using the word "distinctions" over and over and over.

Secondly, the individual distinctions named are themselves composed of a variety of distinct things. For example, for the first one named (distinctions of gifts) brother Lee's footnote says this refers to "the abilities or capacities for service." Do you not believe that these abilities/capacities for service are themselves varied and distinct? Just think of the many areas for service in a local church - are they not varied and distinct one from the other? Or in your locality are the ones on bookroom service then called to turn around and seal the new meeting hall parking lot asphalt....since there is no distinction in gifts?

Brother Nee has this to say: "A gift is the skill of a person. A ministry is the work of a person, and an operation or function is the result of a person's work. For example, in a construction company, there may be concrete workers, stone masons, and carpenters. The three kinds of craftsmen each have their own skill. Actually, there are different skills just among carpenters. Some are good at floor work, and others specialize in making windows or doors. These different skills are like the different gifts mentioned in the Bible. Every servant of God has a certain kind of skill derived from his gift. The gifts are given by the Holy Spirit. There are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit. Everyone has his own gift, but all these gifts must be under the control of the Spirit (v. 11)." (CWWN)

Does the Spirit only operate in one way? No. The Spirit operates in a variety of ways. Thus, the one and same Spirit can have a variety of operations that are distinct. You so neatly grouped together a few that are related (but still distinct), but are you really trying to tell me that there is little difference between someone having a gift of healing and another having a gift of interpretation of tongues? The point of the passage is that there is a variety of distinctions YET THE ONE AND SAME SPIRIT. It is amazing!

[Trapped]

UntoHim and Ohio,

I certainly had a similar thought while reading 1 Cor. 12 in considering whether the tempering applies to the comely members too, but in that chapter alone I could not find backup for it to my satisfaction (I'm open to hear otherwise, however). I think that is just because of the particular focus of the passage though, and I do agree that the "tempering down" of, let's call them, "overly-comely members" is addressed in other verses elsewhere.

I would "temper" my statement above like this though: for the ones who are sources of problems and divisions, for the ones who are puffed up, who solicit rivalries, and abuse absolute authority.......they may seem like or pass themselves off as the "comely" ones on high, but in reality they are among the truly uncomely, aren't they?

That's an interesting question that I hadn't thought of until now.....what do "comely" and "uncomely" really mean? I can think of some fellow brothers and sisters who really rub me the wrong way and give me unnecessary attitude at every turn, and internally I gleefully label them "uncomely", but I wonder what Paul had in mind here? Maybe there is no objective comeliness, but those around us are just comely/uncomely in each of our individual estimations.....i.e. the same one person who may seem uncomely to you may seem comely to another, and in this way every member receives some honor in some way. I'm not sure if that's what is meant......just thinking out loud.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

UntoHim and Ohio,

I certainly had a similar thought while reading 1 Cor. 12 in considering whether the tempering applies to the comely members too, but in that chapter alone I could not find backup for it to my satisfaction (I'm open to hear otherwise, however). I think that is just because of the particular focus of the passage though, and I do agree that the "tempering down" of, let's call them, "overly-comely members" is addressed in other verses elsewhere.

I would "temper" my statement above like this though: for the ones who are sources of problems and divisions, for the ones who are puffed up, who solicit rivalries, and abuse absolute authority.......they may seem like or pass themselves off as the "comely" ones on high, but in reality they are among the truly uncomely, aren't they?

That's an interesting question that I hadn't thought of until now.....what do "comely" and "uncomely" really mean? I can think of some fellow brothers and sisters who really rub me the wrong way and give me unnecessary attitude at every turn, and internally I gleefully label them "uncomely", but I wonder what Paul had in mind here? Maybe there is no objective comeliness, but those around us are just comely/uncomely in each of our individual estimations.....i.e. the same one person who may seem uncomely to you may seem comely to another, and in this way every member receives some honor in some way. I'm not sure if that's what is meant......just thinking out loud.

Good points, Trapped.

The "comeliness" of each member is basically derived from the attitudes of the other saints, either favorable or unfavorable. Paul attempted to address both due to the problem which existed in Corinth. To the same degree both also existed in the LCM. Many have noted LSM's obsession with only "good material" on the campuses whereas the uncomely weak and infirm are totally neglected -- "don't waste your time."

The normal reaction of the LC reader is to consider which member differs from them and decide that some "blending" is required, as if that will expedite oneness and brotherly love in the church life. For sure God desires to give more abundant honor to those which lack, but a far greater source of trouble can be found in the subsequent verse. (I Cor 12.25) Here Paul identifies a source of division in the church by admonishing them to have the same care for one another.

Starting in Texas circa 1980, following the "Max rebellion," a movement grew to "honor" W. Lee, as if he were the victim in that whole fiasco. The LC members were constantly exhorted to "give back" to the ministry as if the entire body of Christ were forever indebted to W. Lee. This devotion was un-tempered by scripture or even reason, resulting in special love for the Lee family at the expense of all others. If the same care for one another in the body of Christ prevents division, obviously having extraordinarily special care for certain ministers will facilitate division, which is exactly what has happened. Regularly.

Remember how this epistle began? (1.12) Each one identified with a specific minister, and they were divided as a result. This is one area where LC adherents are totally blinded instead of blended. They somehow think that these verses never apply to them unless they actually say "I am of Lee." The so-called "New Way" of the 80's aligned those who were "absolutely one with Lee" against those who merely appreciated his teachings. Fights ensued. Changing the wording did not change the reality, nor the result, which was more divisions in the body.

[ZNPaaneah]

The book of Acts presents an example of an uncomely member being blended. The apostle Paul is shipwrecked as a criminal in chains. A venomous snake bites him and everyone assumes he is a criminal that God has judged. They avoid him, he is "an uncomely member". But then he shows no effect of the snake and their opinion changes, they bring him to their homes where he prays for healing, people are healed, and now he is fully blended into the community. They all work together to help him and all with him to continue on their journey.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good points, Trapped.

The "comeliness" of each member is basically derived from the attitudes of the other saints, either favorable or unfavorable. Paul attempted to address both due to the problem which existed in Corinth. To the same degree both also existed in the LCM. Many have noted LSM's obsession with only "good material" on the campuses whereas the uncomely weak and infirm are totally neglected -- "don't waste your time."

The normal reaction of the LC reader is to consider which member differs from them and decide that some "blending" is required, as if that will expedite oneness and brotherly love in the church life. For sure God desires to give more abundant honor to those which lack, but a far greater source of trouble can be found in the subsequent verse. (I Cor 12.25) Here Paul identifies a source of division in the church by admonishing them to have the same care for one another.

Starting in Texas circa 1980, following the "Max rebellion," a movement grew to "honor" W. Lee, as if he were the victim in that whole fiasco. The LC members were constantly exhorted to "give back" to the ministry as if the entire body of Christ were forever indebted to W. Lee. This devotion was un-tempered by scripture or even reason, resulting in special love for the Lee family at the expense of all others. If the same care for one another in the body of Christ prevents division, obviously having extraordinarily special care for certain ministers will facilitate division, which is exactly what has happened. Regularly.

Remember how this epistle began? (1.12) Each one identified with a specific minister, and they were divided as a result. This is one area where LC adherents are totally blinded instead of blended. They somehow think that these verses never apply to them unless they actually say "I am of Lee." The so-called "New Way" of the 80's aligned those who were "absolutely one with Lee" against those who merely appreciated his teachings. Fights ensued. Changing the wording did not change the reality, nor the result, which was more divisions in the body.

Okay, I see now. It's not so much that the comely ones need to be "brought down", which in my mind was sort of a "take them down a notch" kind of thing. It's more like you said in verse 25 about having the same care for all the members, and that if we have extraordinarily special care (or, say, constant, ongoing, unceasing extraordinarily special care) for some then that will cause division. Which as you said, and as many of us have seen, has happened.