The "Functions" of the Parts of Man

[OBW]

One of the things that is so often troubling about the LRC is this need to be "in your spirit" or looking for God "in your spirit." This is tied to Nee's/Lee's definitions of the parts of man. So in many ways, much of LRC theology hangs off of Nee's work in defining the functions of the parts of man.

In The Spiritual Man, Part I, Chapter 2, Nee first lays out his analysis of verses that support his “functions” of the human spirit and the soul. There have been several times over the years that at least some of these have been brought out for discussion, but too often those discussions were met with such lock-step declaration that whatever Nee or Lee said was simply correct that they eventually died out. I’m thinking that maybe we could try it one more time.

Maybe the way to do it is to take it on one aspect at a time. So here is the first portion:

The spirit contains the function of the conscience, although this does not mean that the spirit is the conscience. We can see this from the following verses:

"For Jehovah your God hardened his spirit" (Deut. 2:30).

"Jehovah . . . saves those who are contrite in spirit" (Psa. 34:18).

"Renew a steadfast spirit within me" (Psa. 51:10).

"When Jesus had said these things, He became troubled in His spirit" (John 13:21).

"His spirit was provoked within him as he beheld that the city was full of idols" (Acts 17:16).

"For you have not received a spirit of slavery bringing you into fear again" (Rom. 8:15).

"The Spirit Himself witnesses with our spirit that we are children of God" (Rom. 8:16).

"For I, . . . present in the spirit, have already judged, as if being present, him who has thus done this" (1 Cor. 5:3).

"I had no rest in my spirit" (2 Cor. 2:13).

"For God has not given us a spirit of cowardice" (2 Tim. 1:7).

While some of these probably do indicate some kind of relationship with the conscience, others simply do not. But it might be best if we start out by defining the conscience.

Merriam-Webster provides the following:

1.a: the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good
1.b: a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts
1.c: the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego

2 archaic: consciousness

3: conformity to what one considers to be correct, right, or morally good : conscientiousness

4: sensitive regard for fairness or justice : scruple

The most important point I gather from all of these is that they all relate to an internal compass that guides my own actions. Our reaction to the unrighteousness or sin of others is not a matter of conscience. Conscience, or lack thereof, is what is driving our own actions.

And with that definition, so many of Nee’s verses simply fall away.

Being hardened (Deut. 2:30), contrite (Psa. 34:18), a coward (2 Tim. 1:7), or in slavery (Rom. 8:15) are not matters of conscience. Neither is being “present” (1 Cor. 5:3).

Being provoked concerning the state of a city (“full of idols” in Acts 17:16) may have some relationship to our own internal compass, but I believe that the context would indicate that it is a better understanding that Paul was “greatly distressed” and the term “spirit,” even if actually present, is part of a compound phrase that speaks of a condition or emotion rather than of something concerning a “part of man.” And since “great distress” in this case is an emotion, it is interesting that Nee declares that emotions are not part of the spirit, but of the soul.

A lack of peace in spirit or mind as described in 2 Cor. 2:13 is not a matter of inner compass concerning righteousness. It is an emotional response to the lack of support or comfort since his coworker, Titus, was not there.

A “steadfast spirit” (Psa. 51:10) could relate to a conscience that yells a little louder and more consistently. But “steadfast” is generally a description of determination, therefore of the will (which Nee will later assert is about the soul, not the spirit). A conscience is generally referred to as keen or soft. The reference to pure heart is closer to speaking of the conscience than is the “steadfast spirit.”

Jesus being “troubled in His spirit" (John 13:21) does not seem to fall within the definition of conscience. Did the being troubled indicate that there was something bothering Jesus concerning his own actions? Or was it instead troubling knowledge concerning the action that another was pre-ordained to take? Your conscience does not predict the error of others. It stops your own error (or attempts to do so).

Last, whether or not you are a child of God is not a matter of internal moral compass (Rom. 8:16).

Did any of this actually refer to the conscience? I am hard-pressed to find that it is so. Yet we all listened and/or read these things and simply accepted them as true. Why was that? What caused us to refrain from considering the words spoken and establishing that they were, in fact, not saying anything which could be claimed to be evidence of the thing that Nee sought to establish?

Shall we move on to the next part? I probably can’t get to it until next week, so think about them. Go look at The Spiritual Man in the LSM online treasury. They leave this junk out there for us to critique.

While I will let that last statement stand, I will admit that it was a kind of poisoning of the well. I do not want anyone to fail to give what I have said as strong (or stronger) a critique as I have given Nee. I am clear that I am fallible. But I do believe that all you will be able to find is a better or alternate version of something that does not support Nee. I honestly believe that he had an idea and went fishing for something to support it. He may have done it without intent to fool anyone or be in error. But I believe that is exactly what he did. You may not agree with my alternate view. And you may be able to pick it apart.

But can you support Nee?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Last, whether or not you are a child of God is not a matter of internal moral compass (Rom. 8:16).

Did any of this actually refer to the conscience? I am hard-pressed to find that it is so. Yet we all listened and/or read these things and simply accepted them as true. Why was that?

By the time I left the Recovery in 2005, the matter of "exercising your spirit" became little more than shouting accepted slogans and anticipating an "Amen" response from others. This practice had very little to do with the spirit, especially when our heart was not connected to what we said. We all were guilty of this, though in the GLA there were some who attempted to check this practice as promoted in Anaheim.

As a reaction to this "vain babbling" stressed by the Blendeds, e.g. "let's all stand and exercise our spirit calling on the Lord 5x" before we continue with this Whistler bloodbath called the quarantine of TC, some in the GLA began to teach that "exercising your spirit" should be interpreted as exercising your conscience, since our conscience was the "leading" part of our spirit. I felt this teaching was healthy, even though it was designed to expose the errors at LSM.

If our leaders in the Recovery could publicly promote "exercising your spirit" while regularly backstabbing one another, then what was happening to our collective conscience? It's no wonder that we were tagged the "shouters." Since this kind of two-faced double-souled hypocrisy had been going on for decades, it's no wonder that we had any conscience at all, at least not when it came down to how we treated one another. We already had a history of suing any Christians who attempted to expose our errors, and eventually we were suing each other. We already took one publisher to the US Supreme Court, so what was a little squabble over real estate and bank accounts? It was a sign of a ship-wrecked conscience when it came to how we treated God's other children.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

By the time I left the Recovery in 2005, the matter of "exercising your spirit" became little more than shouting accepted slogans and anticipating an "Amen" response from others. ..

What you've described as exercise of the spirit, I see as being nothing more than soul.
You can be just as if not more excericsed in your spirit in silence, than deploying theatrics to appear as being in spirit. It is a heart matter.

[alwayslearning]

I think the terms used by Nee/Lee such as "parts of man" and "functions" are too mechanical and they create a view of human beings that is quite superficial. Their concept misses all the complexities related to personality, etc that make up a person. This is unfortunate because this teaching has outcomes and one of the outcomes is a disrespect for individuality, creativity, etc.

If you match this with their theology the feel of it is something like: God is a commodity and we are a commodity to be filled with God and ideally this will result in all the clear bottles on the one shelf of the LC system displaying the same brown coca-cola and that is the oneness and the expression of Christ. More specially in later years the one shelf became the LSM and the oneness and expression was that of the commodity of Witness Lee's ministry.