Now's good - byHismercy

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As you can see in the quote you gave, the purpose of getting out of the mind is to be in the spirit. "When you get into your spirit...."

When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...

Rom 8:6

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

[least]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...
Rom 8:6
For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

Hi byHismercy
The past few hours I've been thinking "are the mind and the spirit mutually exclusive?" I've not thought of it this way until E's post (the post you quoted), even tho for years I have been hearing and reading " get out of your mind, get into your spirit." Or " don't use your mind, use your spirit." Or "don't be in your mind, be in the spirit."

The same bible verse came to mind: For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

There are other verses I'm considering, eg. spirit of the mind, renewing of the mind, ...
-

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...

Rom 8:6

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

Amen! I think some LCers have forgotten this after speaking too much "getting out of the mind and be in the spirit". That kind of "life" became a blackhole leading everything to "be in the spirit" but nothing comes out of it, not the love that God wants - And you shall love the Lord your God from your whole heart and from your whole soul and from your whole mind and from your whole strength.

Paul pointed out clearly in Phi 1:9-10 the importance of knowledge and discernment which are matters related to the mind.

9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in full knowledge and all discernment,
10 So that you may approve by testing the things which differ and are more excellent, that you may be pure and without offense unto the day of Christ,

[aron]

The Little Flock of Nee began as an indigenous reaction to to imposition of Western culture on the Chinese, including particularly the RCC and Protestant ecclesiastical models. The LF was effectively a post-protestant model, embracing that one's history and ideas but attempting to go further.

But I notice that, like the Lutherans and Anglicans before, it shows its originating culture. Lee told us that China was "virgin soil"; my reply, there ain't no such thing. For example, the Acts 15 conference has repeated reference to "much discussion" as the Jewish participants tried to collectively assess God's will concerning their relations with the believing gentiles coming into their midst.

But to Nee in the Little Flock, that wasn't "normal", or normative. It was culturally uncomfortable - what if someone said something 'toxic'? The Western model is willing to risk that in its search for truth.

We don't know the details of the discussion in Acts 15. Probably some of them were racist, or at least culturally biased, and said some things that were better not printed. But they were allowed to discuss, as peers. They were allowed to reason with one another. I don't see anyone telling the other, "Get out of your mind".

"If David then calls him 'Lord', how can he be his son?" Matt 22:45. Jesus taught his disciples to think, to reason, and to discuss. A discussion is a mutual learning experience; it is not a lecture by one expert to a group of acolytes. The 'expert' is Jesus - he knows the Father's house. He has left us his holy spirit, and expects us to follow. I suggest that the "much discussion" model of Acts is worth remembering, here.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The Little Flock of Nee began as an indigenous reaction to to imposition of Western culture on the Chinese, including particularly the RCC and Protestant ecclesiastical models. The LF was effectively a post-protestant model, embracing that one's history and ideas but attempting to go further.

But I notice that, like the Lutherans and Anglicans before, it shows its originating culture. Lee told us that China was "virgin soil"; my reply, there ain't no such thing. For example, the Acts 15 conference has repeated reference to "much discussion" as the Jewish participants tried to collectively assess God's will concerning their relations with the believing gentiles coming into their midst.

But to Nee in the Little Flock, that wasn't "normal", or normative. It was culturally uncomfortable - what if someone said something 'toxic'? The Western model is willing to risk that in its search for truth.

We don't know the details of the discussion in Acts 15. Probably some of them were racist, or at least culturally biased, and said some things that were better not printed. But they were allowed to discuss, as peers. They were allowed to reason with one another. I don't see anyone telling the other, "Get out of your mind".

"If David then calls him 'Lord', how can he be his son?" Matt 22:45. Jesus taught his disciples to think, to reason, and to discuss. A discussion is a mutual learning experience; it is not a lecture by one expert to a group of acolytes. The 'expert' is Jesus - he knows the Father's house. He has left us his holy spirit, and expects us to follow. I suggest that the "much discussion" model of Acts is worth remembering, here.

Great post here aron putting history in fresh perspective.

I and others completely bought into this "virgin soil" stuff presented by Lee by concluding that perhaps a different culture -- the one from China -- was somehow a "spiritual" culture because it was foreign to our own here in America. Besides Lee told us so. It took a couple decades for this foreign culture paradigm to get exposed by its bad fruit to us native Americans. So its no wonder that the LC's have become so "yellow" over the years.

I also seemed to have missed the "much discussion" segment of the Acts 15 conference details. Under Lee's ministry it was presented to us as "bad James" and thank God Peter woke up from his "Jewish slumber" to hit a home run for our team. We missed the value of "much discussion." It never fit into the "MOTA model." Paul, the first Protestant MOTA, was supposed to give us a word while everyone else obeyed.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also seemed to have missed the "much discussion" segment of the Acts 15 conference details. Under Lee's ministry it was presented to us as "bad James" and thank God Peter woke up from his "Jewish slumber" to hit a home run for our team. We missed the value of "much discussion." It never fit into the "MOTA model." Paul, the first Protestant MOTA, was supposed to give us a word while everyone else obeyed.

In addition to the "much discussion" in v 7 (NIV), look at the decisionmaking process alluded to in verse 22:

"Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men. . ."

It doesn't say that one super-apostle decided something, but that a group of peers decided something together. I've told this story before, but it bears repeating: one of my elders tried to give a conference on one of Witness Lee's books. He was shut down by Anaheim. "Re-speak the latest conference".

Collective decision-making was foreign to this culture. It was top-down fiat.

I spent several years immersed in the LC, and learned first-hand their zeal, their dedication to their cause. But the cause for me is to tell the gospel of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and the forgiveness and eternal life available in his name. The Little Flock/Local Church gave me "truths" like: one apostle per age (an indefensible joke); one church per city (not true if ekklesia means a 'meeting' like the NT shows [see e.g., Acts 19:41]); the "intensified Christ for the degraded church" (doubtful if there were seven lamps of fire already burning before the ark in Moses' vision - "see that you build all things according to the vision given you on the holy mountain"); and "God's economy" (the only time Jesus spoke on 'oikonomeia' it was typically translated stewardship [Luke 16:2], as in 'responsibility', not 'dispensing').

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

the Acts 15 conference . . . under Lee's ministry it was presented to us as "bad James" and thank God Peter woke up from his "Jewish slumber" to hit a home run for our team. We missed the value of "much discussion." It never fit into the "MOTA model." Paul, the first Protestant MOTA, was supposed to give us a word while everyone else obeyed.

In the Acts 15 conference there were 'senior members' like Peter and James. But it doesn't seem that they dominated the discussion, only that they concluded it.

Apparently multiple parties got to speak in Acts 15, and give differing views, then Peter and James got to conclude and vocalize group consensus. In the Little Flock/Local Church model, only the deputy God got to speak, and everyone else had to say, "Amen". Do you see the difference? In the Nee/Lee church model only one person got to speak and the rest had to echo. In the LC if anyone tried actual discussion they were told to "get out of your mind". If they persisted in attempting discussion, they were branded rebels, traitors to the cause and expelled.

And if their 'oracle' made logical errors, like in one place saying that the psalmist portrayed Christ through violent expressions ("this shows Christ defeating Satan") and elsewhere calling the same views "natural" or "fallen", or if the RecV footnote in one place said that the psalmist was blessed and rewarded for his fealty as Christ typified (e.g., Psalm 16, notably cited on Pentecost) while elsewhere footnotes panned the same views because "we all know that nobody can please God" (e.g., Psalm 15, Psalms 17-19), we simply had to say, "Amen", because the oracle had spoken. End of discussion. (or, better put, no discussion). "Get into your spirit, brother!"

Or if their deputy God erred and put his "unspiritual" progeny over the churches, to run roughshod over them, too bad. No commentary allowed, nor discussion. One must "take the cross" or some other pseudo-spiritual phraseology.

These kinds of experiences better fit a "cultural Christianity from the orient" model than the actual experiences shown in the NT.

The LC posits an 'expressed truth' or 'recovered truth' dominating each segment of the narrative, and one protagonist as its prime mover. In Acts 15, for example, Peter is perhaps the mover of the "gentiles can come in the church without restrictions" idea, acquiesced by James.

But we should stress that this idea only arrived at after open group discussion. The idea of one dominant oracular vessel holding one 'truth' per age doesn't fit the NT text nor church history. Only Jesus has such a place in the gospel narrative; none else. Those believe in the resurrection of Jesus find themselves in an assemblage of peers, of fellows, of mutuality, of "considering others as greater than oneself". Only Jesus is the Master.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...

Rom 8:6

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

The reason Lee uses the language "get out of.. " is because he relates it to Hebrews 3 and Hebrews 4, describing the three stages of getting out of Egypt, journeying through the wilderness, and getting into the good land. That is all documented in his book "The Kingdom". But people here fail to see that connection and the reason why Lee used the terminology "get out of the mind". Rather than consider the stated and obvious reasons why Lee would use that terminology, they prefer to jump to their own conclusions and blame Lee for teaching Eastern mysticism.

We get out of our mind (flesh/natural) by setting our mind (neutral) on the Spirit. That's what Lee taught. I think Lee used the same word mind with different connotations - one is negative, the other is neutral.

To express this more fully we could say:

We get out of our mind set on the flesh, by setting our mind on the Spirit.

Equivalently, we could say

"We get out of our mind set on the flesh and into a mind set on the Spirit by setting our mind on the Spirit."

More specifically, to break "mind" down into the three parts of will, thoughts and emotions:

"We get out of our natural thoughts and emotions and into spiritual thoughts and emotions by setting our thoughts and emotions on the Spirit."

It is important to note that here the will is used to set the mind on the Spirit, and this results in getting out of our mind set on the flesh. Setting the mind on the Spirit is the focus.

I don't see Lee ever teaching "get out of your mind" for the sake of getting out of the mind, as Eastern religions or drug users might. He always qualifies that with the goal of getting into the Spirit.

At least, people should read the book "The Kingdom" before jumping to conclusions about Lee's terminology.

If there is any group getting "out of their mind" in Christianity it is the tongue speakers, pentecostal worshippers who whip themselves into an emotional frenzy using choreography, dance and music, and sometimes mass hypnosis (Benny Hinn and others), drunk in the Spirit and "holy laughter", and Catholic contemplative meditators, not the local churches. Full control of mental faculties are retained before, during and after a church meeting.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

At least, people should read the book "The Kingdom" before jumping to conclusions about Lee's terminology.

If there is any group getting "out of their mind" in Christianity it is the tongue speakers, pentecostal worshippers who whip themselves into an emotional frenzy using choreography, dance and music, and sometimes mass hypnosis (Benny Hinn and others), drunk in the Spirit and "holy laughter", and Catholic contemplative meditators, not the local churches. Full control of mental faculties are retained before, during and after a church meeting.

I disagree. We were told to get out of our mind, period. No qualifiers. As with most of the Lee corpus, what may have originally related to scripture, however faintly, was dumbed down to the point of caricature, or worse. Shouting slogans became the way "out of our minds".

And we did a lot of jumping and shouting and arm-waving to manufacture an exalted state (at least, my group did. And I saw it in Anaheim too). So don't be so quick to try & distance yourself from pentecostalism. As Drake says, "That wasn't my experience."

And the videos I saw smuggled out of the PRC are even more damning when I consider what role that shouting slogans for hours had in producing ISIS-level craziness. Talk about an emotional frenzy. . . it was pretty clear on the video tape that they were suppressing the mind.

Again, go to the Acts 15 conference for comparison. Did the person who shouted slogans the loudest prevail? No, they had what most of us would call a discussion

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I disagree. We were told to get out of our mind, period. No qualifiers. As with most of the Lee corpus, what may have originally related to scripture, however faintly, was dubbed down to the point of caricature, or worse. Shouting slogans became the way "out of our minds".

And we did a lot of jumping and shouting and arm-waving to manufacture an exalted state (at least, my group did. And I saw it in Anaheim too). So don't be so quick to try & distance yourself from pentecostalism. As Drake says, "That wasn't my experience."

Going to Anaheim was literally a "Trip" for most of us from Ohio.

What began for me initially as a focused time to study God's word morphed into shout-reading Lee's footnotes in the Trainings. It was publicly proclaimed that PSRP separated us from poor, poor Christianity. They were right. The more the better. There's nothing about PSRP that even included God's word. Reading banners to start the Trainings was the least of it.

And talk about a charismatic frenzy. Whoever started that practice of praying in small groups during the meetings? Thousands shouting over others in order to hear themselves. At times I felt like crawling into a hole to preserve sanity. Thank God for ear plugs!

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by aron

I disagree. We were told to get out of our mind, period. No qualifiers. As with most of the Lee corpus, what may have originally related to scripture, however faintly, was dubbed down to the point of caricature, or worse. Shouting slogans became the way "out of our minds".

And we did a lot of jumping and shouting and arm-waving to manufacture an exalted state (at least, my group did. And I saw it in Anaheim too). So don't be so quick to try & distance yourself from pentecostalism. As Drake says, "That wasn't my experience."

Aron I agree with most of what you're saying, but I have to jump in because I agree with Drake on a point - I love when that happens! I heard frequent condemnation of Pentecostals (much like what Evangelical was sharing) and, in that, didn't see arm waiving or jumping during my year visiting with the LSM ministry churches (and attending the December "training") in 2015-16.

I remember discussing speaking in tongues in one home meeting. I personally don't speak in tongues and have never attended a church that promoted it specifically as a practice (so no need to lash out at me Evangelical) but these people so blindly follow Lee that they mark all people who speak in tongues as crazy Pentecostals - they didn't even know any individuals who spoke in tongues to make this judgement (at least most of them). I shared my experience and it was met with silence from the older brothers and sisters in the room - this wasn't part of their morning revival so they didn't have much to contribute. Experiencing the Lord through His Word and His Body is so much sweeter than parroting what some dead dude with a questionable Christian Leadership says.

This is a perfect example of the toxic culture in the LSM churches and why brothers and sisters need to be warned - even today - of WHO they are following and WHAT this ministry really is. This ministry is not the Lord's work to build His one true church, Witness lee was not the great Christian leader of a dispensation. All praise to God that this is not our truth.

[aron]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I heard frequent condemnation of Pentecostals (much like what Evangelical was sharing) and, in that, didn't see arm waiving or jumping during my year visiting with the LSM ministry churches (and attending the December "training") in 2015-16. .

My experience is 20 years ago so maybe it's changed, but back then your loyalty to the program, aka "being in spirit" could be assessed by: a) volume; b) sing-song cadence; c) repeating ministry verbatim; and d) rocking back and forth, head rolling, first pumps and karate chops, and hopping up and down. What I saw from the PRC could most accurately be described as screaming. Like, veins-standing-out screaming.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by aron

My experience is 20 years ago so maybe it's changed, but back then your loyalty to the program, aka "being in spirit" could be assessed by: a) volume; b) sing-song cadence; c) repeating ministry verbatim; and d) rocking back and forth, head rolling, first pumps and karate chops, and hopping up and down. What I saw from the PRC could most accurately be described as screaming. Like, veins-standing-out screaming.

Awesome-Karate chops! Man I missed out.

They still practiced pray reading which the brothers demonstrate their connectedness to Witness Lee by the volume of their voice (tongue-cheek). All a dog and pony show to show off for the LSM gang - this according to one Full Timer on the inside. All bark, no Spirit, all talk, no walk. Sad man, sad place. The Pharisees would be jealous. Guy’s like my FT friend tried to shine light, change the culture of Home meetings, but most in the “Church Life” don’t want it. They’re comfortable in the bubble. But there is so much more!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Awesome-Karate chops! Man I missed out.

!

You should have seen those awesome Karate chops while fast-forwarding thru the videos.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

What I saw from the PRC could most accurately be described as screaming. Like, veins-standing-out screaming.

Yikes Aron.

That bears very little resemblance to what a have observed in multiple localities over forty years. Then or now. PRC or elsewhere.

If I had experienced anything close to that description I would have been the driver of your getaway car!

Drake

[JJ]

Yes, it's been toned down quite a bit in recent years, but the longer you go back the sort of behavior aron described was quite common in TLR's California churches. Dick Taylor had a fierce karate chop and shouts! And now he's blended, and toned down quite a bit thank God

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I disagree. We were told to get out of our mind, period. No qualifiers. As with most of the Lee corpus, what may have originally related to scripture, however faintly, was dumbed down to the point of caricature, or worse. Shouting slogans became the way "out of our minds".

And we did a lot of jumping and shouting and arm-waving to manufacture an exalted state (at least, my group did. And I saw it in Anaheim too). So don't be so quick to try & distance yourself from pentecostalism. As Drake says, "That wasn't my experience."

And the videos I saw smuggled out of the PRC are even more damning when I consider what role that shouting slogans for hours had in producing ISIS-level craziness. Talk about an emotional frenzy. . . it was pretty clear on the video tape that they were suppressing the mind.

Again, go to the Acts 15 conference for comparison. Did the person who shouted slogans the loudest prevail? No, they had what most of us would call a discussion

The key thing is not the outward manifestation per se but the cause of that - is it emotional or is it spiritual? Even Jesus jumped up and down with joy on occasion. And for prophets in the Old Testament it was customary to strip naked and their behavior was bizarre.

However in Pentecostalism it is noticeably caused by the drumming rhythms and beats (similar to African tribal frenzy) and the expectation for God to "work a miracle" and the Spirit to "come down". Somehow their experiences are correlated with the quality of the music and sound effects, that without them they would not be able to produce those experiences. In fact Pentecostals are unable to produce these experiences without some kind of worship music playing in the background. This shows that they seek to touch their emotions to gain the Spirit. It's all about creating the "atmosphere". In the local churches the piano players can be more of a distraction to the atmosphere than anything else - there is really little comparison. "Stop playing honky tonk when I'm trying to touch the Spirit".

In contrast a spiritual person can access the Spirit of God through prayer or God's Word, and experience positive emotions, any time, regardless of outward circumstances. This can result in ecstatic behavior but like the Old Testament prophets comes through activity of the Spirit alone and not external stimuli.

To be clear, I don't believe there's a problem with using emotions to touch the Spirit, but the number of Kundalini videos on youtube makes me think it is dangerous if taken too far.

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The key thing is not the outward manifestation per se but the cause of that - is it emotional or is it spiritual? Even Jesus jumped up and down with joy on occasion. And for prophets in the Old Testament it was customary to strip naked and their behavior was bizarre.

However in Pentecostalism it is noticeably caused by the drumming rhythms and beats (similar to African tribal frenzy) and the expectation for God to "work a miracle" and the Spirit to "come down". Somehow their experiences are correlated with the quality of the music and sound effects, that without them they would not be able to produce those experiences. In fact Pentecostals are unable to produce these experiences without some kind of worship music playing in the background. This shows that they seek to touch their emotions to gain the Spirit. It's all about creating the "atmosphere". In the local churches the piano players can be more of a distraction to the atmosphere than anything else - there is really little comparison. "Stop playing honky tonk when I'm trying to touch the Spirit".

In contrast a spiritual person can access the Spirit of God through prayer or God's Word, and experience positive emotions, any time, regardless of outward circumstances. This can result in ecstatic behavior but like the Old Testament prophets comes through activity of the Spirit alone and not external stimuli.

To be clear, I don't believe there's a problem with using emotions to touch the Spirit, but the number of Kundalini videos on youtube makes me think it is dangerous if taken too far.

Hi Evangelical
Where are the references to prophets stripping naked and acting strangely? If someone was to do that in front of me, I'd be outta there! Thank you.