Soul-Life, Kundalini, and Watchman Nee

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

If we let go of our individuality before coming to true knowledge and faith in Jesus Christ, that unoccupied space that is created through practices of mysticism will definitely be filled with something but I'm most certain it won't be the Holy Spirit of God. (Matt 12:43) .

Since I was the one who started this ball rolling on another thread, with my 'soul-life' remark, I'll start the response chain here. What I meant by "he who loses his soul-life will gain it" was not an emphasis on 'soul-life' per se, but that our human orientation is toward the things of self. But God's orientation is that we lose the self (fallen, alienated from the life of God) by letting go of things in space and time and heading towards the eternal things. Jesus continually pointed us to the things which were above.

If someone strikes your cheek, offer the other.
If someone asks for your coat, give them your shirt.
If someone wants you to go with them for the mile, you should go two.

It is better to give than to receive.
When you invite people to your banquet, don't invite the well-heeled who can repay you but those who can't, and your reward will be great in heaven.

The focus was not on cheeks, coats, shirts, miles or even souls but rather on loss. Lose that in this age which holds you back and holds you down. So I offered 'soul-life' in that vein, not as something to be examined in and of itself but something to be let go of as detrimental to the cause (that of returning home to the Father). My immediate context was Matthew 16

23 But Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get out of my way, Satan! You are tempting me to sin. You aren't thinking the way God thinks but the way humans think."

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Those who want to come with me must say no to the things they want, pick up their crosses, and follow me. 25 Those who want to save their lives will lose them. But those who lose their lives for me will find them. 26 What good will it do for people to win the whole world and lose their lives? Or what will a person give in exchange for life? 27 The Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory. Then he will pay back each person based on what that person has done.

I know someone will say, "What profits a man that gains the whole world but loses his soul" as showing the soul is worth the world. But we don't know what the soul is. So we create our concepts, our imaginariums. Which Watchman Nee did, and you point out. It is a construct.

In the LC, people are taught to trust their "supernaturally-enhanced intuition", as I'd put it. I had a feeling, they say. I had a leading for such-and-such. This means that the Holy Spirit in their human spirit was telling them to take a left at Miller and Vine streets, and they didn't know the bridge was out. So they use this as proof that they are "in the flow". But they can't even say anything when the Church Leader sins, or when the Bible is suborned. So their conscience is burned as with a hot iron. It is calloused. So where is this intuition from? Not anything that I want.

All of which is to say that I think you are onto something.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

Since I was the one who started this ball rolling on another thread, with my 'soul-life' remark, I'll start the response chain here. What I meant by "he who loses his soul-life will gain it" was not an emphasis on 'soul-life' per se, but that our human orientation is toward the self. God's orientation is that we lose the self (fallen, alienated from the life of God) by letting go of things in space and time and heading towards the eternal things.

If someone strikes your cheek, offer the other.
If someone asks for your coat, give them your shirt.
If someone wants you to go with them for the mile, you should go two.

It is better to give than to receive.
When you invite people to your banquet, don't invite the well-heeled who can repay you but those who can't, and your reward will be great in heaven.

The focus was not on coats or shirts or miles or even souls but rather on loss. Lose that in this age which holds you back and holds you down. So I offered 'soul-life' in that vein, not as something to be examined in and of itself but something to be let go of as detrimental to the cause (that of returning home to the Father).

Didn't mean to put you on the spot, Aron, but I took the opportunity to let some thoughts fly on the topic of eastern mysticism within the LC's.

Did you know where this term came from? Your definition doesn't really line up with Watchman Nee's. Maybe Lee had a different spin on it or it's just your personal view..

To be fair, I did ask you for clarification on what you meant by "soul-life" but you never responded. This is what you get for it I guess, j/k. I'm actually glad you didn't.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

To be fair, I did ask you for clarification on what you meant by "soul-life" but you never responded. This is what you get I guess, lol j/k. I'm actually glad you didn't.

I was using LC terminology 'soul-life' without really checking if it were accurate or not. Someday such things might mean a lot to me but today I was focused on the principle of the re-oreintation away from the selfish things, me, me, and me, and looking to the things of God. Witness Lee seems like he never made that re-orientation, by his letting his admittedly unspiritual sons run roughshod over the church members.

But now that you focus on the term, "soul" or "soul-life", I think that you are onto something. The LC rank-and-file are sold something extra, something special, but those who sell them these goods fail at the basic level of righteousness. So what are they selling them?

Not something I want to buy.

Watchman Nee reminds me of a musician who wrote a smash hit pop song using some borrowed trope. Then he spends the rest of his/her days feeding off that hit, and trying vainly to put out something of substance, and covering for the fact that he/she is unable. Think Britney Spears or Madonna. There never was anything there, ever. It is just layers of schmalz covering up that simple fact that there's nothing there.

In Nee's case, he cribbed Jessie Penn-Lewis' work on the latent power of the soul, and it was a smash hit in China, and he was off and running. I mean, who had read Penn-Lewis in China? No one. So he had the market to himself.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

I know someone will say, "What profits a man that gains the whole world but loses his soul" as showing the soul is worth the world. But we don't know what the soul is. So we create our concepts, our imaginariums. Which Watchman Nee did, and you point out. It is a construct.

I agree that Nee had a misconstrued idea of the human soul. But putting that all aside; if we can't know what the soul is why does Jesus command us to Love the Lord with all our soul? Surely if he commanded such a thing, he's implying you can know your soul. Perhaps the LC doesn't want you to know that but the Lord definitely does. He even said just before his crucifixion, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death.". He knew that the part of him which was sorrowful was his soul. But I get what you're saying. When you get caught in the semantics of it all is where most of the confusion comes from.

Originally Posted by aron

In Nee's case, he cribbed Jessie Penn-Lewis' work on the latent power of the soul, and it was a smash hit in China, and he was off and running. I mean, who had read Penn-Lewis in China? No one. So he had the market to himself.

I'm glad you bought her up. I read in Latent Power of the Soul a quote of Jessie Penn-Lewis that alarmed me. It was this quote from one of her books that Nee referenced. She says;

"The Body of Christ is by the energy of the Holy Spirit within her, advancing heavenward."


She refers to the Body of Christ as a "her". Jesus Christ is obviously male. Wouldn't then making the head and the body of Christ as opposing sexes cleverly promulgate the idea of androgyny? Androgyny was of course something not only practiced by pagan cultures outwardly but was also built into their spiritual belief systems.

This all comes from the gnostic "Sophian" doctrines (latter adopted by Roman Catholicism) that teach that the bride of Christ ("bride" inferring femininity) is also the body of Christ and this union of masculine (head) and feminine (body) creates a sort of "holy" spiritual union or matrimony. You can say this thought is very "Jezebelian" in nature because it's the same duality taught in all forms of false religion. I touched on this is another thread here but did not realize until now the origins of this influence within the LC's.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I agree that Nee had a false concept of the human soul. But putting that all aside; if we can't know what the soul is why does Jesus command us to Love the Lord will all our soul? Surely if he commanded such a thing, he's implying you can know your soul.

I had that thought some years after leaving the LCs. If Jesus said that you should love your neighbour as yourself, shouldn't you love yourself? How can you love your neighbour if you don't know what constitutes "yourself"? Likewise the soul, how can you lay it down if you don't know what it is? I don't mean semantically, but experientially.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I'm glad you bought her up. I read in Latent Power of the Soul a quote of Jessie Penn-Lewis that ... refers to the Body of Christ as a "her". Correct me if I'm wrong but Jesus Christ is male, right? Wouldn't making the head and the body of Christ as opposing sexes promulgate androgyny? Of course this all comes from the gnostic Roman Catholic "Sophian" doctrines that teach that the bride of Christ is also the body of Christ and this union of masculine and feminine creates a sort of "holy" spiritual union or matrimony. You can say this thought is very "Jezebelian" in nature. I touched on this is another thread but did not realize until now the origins of this influence within the LC's.

I don't think Penn-Lewis or Guyon or Fenelon or others as 'wrong' per se, not having read enough to judge. But there is certainly danger in opening oneself to such spirits. The counterfeits are allowed entry when we are in ecstasy.

Let me give another example. A brother on this forum, awareness, has said that his regional elder MP told him, "You will take my personality as your own". Whose personality was he fronting? Witness Lee's. Who was Lee fronting?

Another example: while Witness Lee was telling the reporter in Seattle, "Here we are so free", his hatchet-man RG was in BM's face, telling him, "Here, we do what we are told". This kind of two-facedness went on all the time. Like a dysfunctional family with a "public face" and a "behind-the-scenes family life". Now what spirit was at work? In any case where humans are, there is reason to be cautious, but where we are dabbling in mysticism and subjective experience of spiritism, we should be doubly wary.

Originally Posted by Nell

At some point Christians need to understand and acknowledge that there are two spirits. One is Holy. The other is not. I once witnessed a meltdown of a brother in a meeting. There were 50-60 people there who witnessed this. All the words he spoke were “right”. However, everyone there clearly knew something was “not right”. This brother wasn’t around much longer after what happened in that meeting.

This would have been the appropriate time for leadership to help all of us to understand what had happened...if leadership themselves understood what was going on. Instead, publicly it was ignored. Privately, I could never forget what I saw and I could never reconcile “release your spirit” with what I saw.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

I had that thought some years after leaving the LCs. If Jesus said that you should love your neighbour as yourself, shouldn't you love yourself? How can you love your neighbour if you don't know what constitutes "yourself"? Likewise the soul, how can you lay it down if you don't know what it is? I don't mean semantically, but experientially.

Aron, I understand what you're saying but I think we have to be a bit cautious here.

In Mark 12:31 when he says "love others as youself" Jesus assumes those he's addressing already know God's love for them. And as with any relational love, whether it be with God or man, comes by hearing, seeing, and understanding (experiential or revelatory).

None are separate from each other so we have to be careful also that we don't discard any of them as in saying feelings, or emotions, or subjective experiences in themselves are inherently bad and not a part of our relationship with God. The only thing is we shouldn't be chasing after these things or rely on them as validation because without a full understanding we'll actually chase our own constructs rather then what's real. And it's human nature to only want the ecstacy (good) rather than the hurt and suffering (bad) that comes along with God's love. And you know who will offer you only the convient things of life....(Mark 8:33)

With that in mind, Jesus is saying we should love other's as God has loved us. He doesn't say "love others as you love yourself". There's a big difference just by those two words and it's the difference between God's love and narcissism. We definitely don't want to love ourselves by ourselves as any type of means to an end but if God loves us and we in turn love Him, understanding His perspective on how He views us instills a deep sense of value and worth that can then be imparted to others. And so, we should love others as if we were standing opposite of ourselves and viewing our own person through God's eyes.

I probably don't need to say all of that, but I have seen young ones that came out of very legalistic and controlling religious environments that go from one extreme to the other extreme of new age self-love because they don't know where else to render from the love they're so desperately seeking. That in turn can lead down some very dark paths into false spirituality. Or they give up on love entirely and fall into pure rationalism and atheism.

Originally Posted by aron

I don't think Penn-Lewis or Guyon or Fenelon or others as 'wrong' per se, not having read enough to judge. But there is certainly danger in opening oneself to such spirits. The counterfeits are allowed entry when we are in ecstasy.

You just said, "you don't think Penn-Lewis or Guyon or Fenelon or others as wrong". Isn't that a judgement?

Unfortunately, from all that I've read and seen, Nee too thought he shouldn't judge in that he had the more liberal belief that everyone had a portion of "light" to be gained from and he carried this belief wherever he meet with the many people that shaped his worldview. Can people offer others light from God? Yes of course but not all people in all circumstances.

He too was judging but not judging at the same time. And unfortunately by this type of discernment believing all people and circumstances had potential to further him on his spiritual journey led him to be tossed like a wave in the sea inadvertently creating a mishmash of gnosticism and eastern mysticim with a veener of Christianity...I'm sorry if that last part sounds harsh but I truly do believe that. And to be clear, I do not have a vendetta against Watchman Nee or anyone else, but I do see him in some of the people I have gotten to know within the LC's. I'd hate for them to make the same mistakes, like Nee, I once made myself.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jo S

....I'm glad you bought her up. I read in Latent Power of the Soul a quote of Jessie Penn-Lewis that alarmed me. It was this quote from one of her books that Nee referenced. She says;

"The Body of Christ is by the energy of the Holy Spirit within her, advancing heavenward."


She refers to the Body of Christ as a "her". ...

Which JPL book? Page #? Such a statement needs context, don’t you think? Could JPL be referring to “her” in the context of her=JPL? Was not the Body of Christ also referred to the Bride of Christ which could appropriately be referred to as "her"? We should be able to read for ourselves and use our own judgment about what JPL meant...don’t you think?

I've read JPL's "War on the Saints" and it's like gnawing a bone. Written in a turn of the century (1900's) writing style, and a slow read to understand what she's saying.

Nell

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Nell

Which JPL book? Page #? Such a statement needs context, don’t you think? Could JPL be referring to “her” in the context of her=JPL? Was not the Body of Christ also referred to the Bride of Christ which could appropriately be referred to as "her"? We should be able to read for ourselves and use our own judgment about what JPL meant...don’t you think?

I've read JPL's "War on the Saints" and it's like gnawing a bone. Written in a turn of the century (1900's) writing style, and a slow read to understand what she's saying.

Nell

The book is Soul and Spirit: How to Find Freedom from the Tyranny of the Soul

You can find the quote here