The God who died

[aron]

The God who died, part A

Originally Posted by aron

I would like to offer a couple of examples.

Second example: the Centurion's slave in Luke 7. The centurion's word says, "For I also am a man under authority, and I say to my servant, "Go", and he goes, and to one "come" and he comes, and to another "Do this", and he does it." Jesus marveled and said that there was no such faith in all of Israel. But the question that is begged by the centurion's word is simply ignored. Jesus clearly is also a man under authority, who came to do the Father's will. But who are the servant's of Jesus, that He merely needs to give the word to, and the Centurion's slave will be healed? Is the Holy Spirit the servant of Jesus? Or is it angels? Or some combination?

Look at Psalm 147. "Jehovah sends His command to the earth/His word runs swiftly". The Luke narrative said that "in that same hour the centurion's slave was healed", that Jesus said it was to be done. So the centurion indeed understood what was going on. Jesus just spoke the word and the slave was healed at that very hour. Indeed the word does run swiftly. But what did the centurion understand, that Jesus marveled? We don't ask, because it might upset our dogma. At least that is my impression. The centurion's explanation, that Jesus marveled at, is simply excised from the discussion. If Jesus has invisible servants who go and come at His word and do what He commands, we don't want to think about it because our job as Protestants is to ignore the angels. Or, how can we say the Holy Spirit is "under" Jesus? The centurion said, "I also have servants under me"????

So we ignore it. Not neat and tidy like our theology. We would rather be comfortable.

I've gotten sick of hijacking Bearbear's thread on "supernatural worldview and the power of the Holy Spirit", so I'll continue here. I want to write about the God who died, and what it looked and felt like.

But first I wanted to show the "supernatural worldview" by way of contrast. Faithful readers will notice that I've made a lot of hay on John 1:51. "You will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man." At one point I got interested in seeing heaven open, and so I began to pay attention to these things. Jesus prayed to the Father, "Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven". What is it like "in heaven". Jesus said, "In the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be like angels in heaven." What is it like in heaven?

So John 1:51 became, to me, is an invitation by Jesus Christ Himself to see the heavens opened, and to see the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man. If WL wants to turn that into "the Holy Spirit" from Genesis 28 (the oil upon the rock), or "the church life" from the same passage (Jacob said that Bethel was the house of God), or "the humanity of Jesus" (i.e. the Son of Man as the ladder on the earth and touching heaven) that is fine. But to me the question remained, even begging to be asked: what do you see when heaven is opened?

As I said, the Roman Centurion got a good supernatural worldview when he talked about being under authorit, and having servants under him, and telling them "Come" and "Go" and "do this" and they would come, and go, and do this, as he channeled his authority Caesar. Surely Jesus was doing the same thing. A lot to see there, if you are interested.

Now on to part B

[aron]

The God who died, part B.

Now that I have gotten your attention with a question about what the opened heaven reveals, I want to look at the God who died.

Witness Lee asked the elders of the Shanghai Christian Assembly, "How did you feel when you evicted Watchman Nee from fellowship?" I think he wanted to expose them, as disconnected from God, but to me he actually exposed the system that he and Nee were enslaved to. They created a God, who died there when the Shanghai elders found out what Nee was apparently doing (I say apparently because I don't know for sure. But they had enough information to strongly suspect).

The God of the church in Shanghai was the Little Flock organization, with Nee firmly at its head, as the "acting God"... Eventually this collapsed when Nee apparently was mortal, even venal, like the rest of fallen humanity. This is the view of earth. We may dress it up in scriptures, arrange it with our logic, argue convincingly and even emotionally, even having convinced ourselves, we may insist that it bears no traces of the world, or the fall, or the flesh, or the grasping human soul. But eventually our God will be revealed for what it is, an illusion. And then WL asked them, "How did you feel"? All you had to guide you was your subjective response. Not scriptures, not your conscience. Just your fallen, thrill-seeking self. You wanted to be part of God's best. But you were part of an illusion. How did you feel when you found out?

For me, I didn't feel good. I gave up on God. I got discouraged. But eventually I went back to the Bible, and eventually Jesus told me that I would see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man. I got curious (shame on me, right -- like Moses and the burning bush, I turned aside to see this marvelous sight) and began seeking. I believe today that the God who failed is anything we construct with our human will. Like Peter, we say "It is good for us to build three booths here: one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah". We see God but we want to come alongside and do something.

I think the Shanghai Christian Assembly was the result of some kind of Asian-flavored Protestant spin off (the Brethren, the Keswick Convention, some 19th century European revivalism) which was itself a reaction to Catholic idiocy (even Catholics admitted that the medieval RCC was pretty weird [but "it's the Church", as LRC faithful are wont to repeat] ), which was a reaction to the orthodoxy of the late first millenia, etc... a long chain of fallen, well-meaning people reacting to the failures of the fallen, well-meaning (mostly) people around them. Sure, God was there, but eventually we build illusory Gods. And when our Gods died, someone like Witness Lee might come alongside and ask, "How did you feel, when your God died?"

By contrast, I would argue that the supernatural view, the kingdom of heaven, continues to call.. because it is real. The Bible reveals Jesus Christ, who reveals the Father, who clearly reveals the sent Spirit. If we would wait, and watch, and pray, the text would begin to stir, and our hearts would open, and a fire would fall.

I was there once. The Local Church life was indeed my God. Eventually what I saw, and felt, convinced me that my God was illusory.

[awareness]

What about the God who died?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

What about the God who died?

I don't think he was talking about the crucifixion of Christ. He was talking about the dethroning of the crown prince of the Local Church (or the Shanghai Christian Assembly as it was at the time). Their god was executed when he ceased to be divine and became mortal, venal. When he had weaknesses like all men and gave in to them.

So when the LRC died to us, was that our god? What happened to us?

I know that in my case it died slowly. There were problems so we left. But there was some thought that we could go back again. (not much) I dealt with the demise of one little idol after another. But still found myself clinging to a lot of the theology (even if not the ground). Then I saw enough to begin to peel it away. My experience was not like everyone else's. It was slow. There were times that it was painful, although I mainly reacted with anger toward it rather than retreating to it.

Is it over? Not entirely, but enough so that I think that I welcome each discovery of its existence and death to me.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

What about the God who died?

See below.

Originally Posted by aron

Witness Lee asked the elders of the Shanghai Christian Assembly, "How did you feel when you evicted Watchman Nee from fellowship?" They'd created a God, who died there when the Shanghai elders found out what Nee was apparently doing ...

The God of the church in Shanghai was the organization, with Nee firmly at its head, as the "acting God"... Eventually this collapsed [died] when Nee apparently was mortal, even venal, like the rest of fallen humanity.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

So when the LRC died to us, was that our god? What happened to us?

I know that in my case it died slowly. ..My experience was not like everyone else's. It was slow. There were times that it was painful, although I mainly reacted with anger toward it rather than retreating to it.

A) My premise here is that we come into God's move, dragging our own agendas, motives, feelings, desires, and opinions. In the case of the Nee/Lee religious organization-building project, Lee ended up asking the Shanghai elders how it felt when they disfellowshipped Nee. Lee was appealing to their subjective experience, over the plain words of scripture. Paul had written, "Remove the evil man from your midst"; by contrast Lee said, "How does it feel, when you remove the evil man from your midst?" It was the kingdom of subjective experience. He thought he was exposing them but he was exposing the whole system.

Likewise Lee could later ask Max R. about his feelings, in discovering Philip Lee's behavior in LSM's headquarters office, and also ask Sal Benoit about how it felt to the saints in Boston that they'd lost thier "investment" in Timothy Lee's company, Daystar. Your feelings exposed your emotional investment in Lee's organization, and now your investment just died; how does that make you feel?

B) My second point is that our behavior often follows the failure of others'. In so doing, we correctly identify the splinter in someone else's eye, but miss the beam in ours: Nee could see the problems in Protestant Christian China (and elsewhere) but couldn't see the problems inherent in his response. Supposedly his Little Flock was pure, it represented the "normal" church on the earth today. That was why I referenced historical moves like the Protestant Reformation -- Luther could see the RCC problems but not his own; RCC leaders in 1054 could see failures in the Orthodox position; Lee critiqued "lifeless Protestantism" but his LRC movement was supposedly living and vital. Etc, etc. We can always point the finger somewhere else, and mask (ignore) our own subjective response.

For example, Nee didn't see the idea of absolute obedience while he was in the Protestant denominations; there, he was free to leave and set up his own, improved system. But once he got his Little Flock up and running, suddenly nobody else was free to do likewise. Suddenly Nee discovered "God's deputy authority," and doing anything independently or separately would be "rebellion." Nee, like Lee, exhibited a 'do as I say, not as I do' pattern. They could see the faults in others' behaviour, not their own.

And this applies to us all. My own writings here are just as suspect. I may see the situation with Nee and Lee, correctly (to some extent) identify its shortcoming, and then proceed to stuff my analyses with my own failures, wants, needs, prejudices, arrogance, and ignorance. In so doing, I build a God who dies. "Lord, it is good for us all to be here. I got an idea: let's build three huts. One for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." In fairness, Lee did note this, but he erroneously supposed that he as MOTA was free from this pattern. Paul had never made a mistake, as MOTA, nor did Nee, nor did he.

Subjectivism drives the construction of our supposedly objective reality.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I don't think he was talking about the crucifixion of Christ. He was talking about the dethroning of the crown prince of the Local Church (or the Shanghai Christian Assembly as it was at the time). Their god was executed when he ceased to be divine and became mortal, venal. When he had weaknesses like all men and gave in to them.

So when the LRC died to us, was that our god?

Wow, that meaning of the thread was completely lost on me. Went right over my head.

But you are right. My gods have died along the way. And thank God for that. We should kill our own designer gods, human or otherwise.

And I agree the journey of all my gods dying thru the yrs has been painful.

For example, after decades, even, when I read Lily Hsu's book it hurt to find out how human Watchman Nee was. And I'd long ago forgot about Nee. But that god lived on in me.

Our beliefs, spiritual, and Biblical convictions, became precious to us. And to the degree we've been invested in them, like an all in life commitment, the more and deeper it hurts when the rug is pulled out from under them.

Over the years so many rugs have been pulled out from my understandings and convictions that I'm now gun shy about myself and my judgments. I've been wrong way toooooo many times to even trust myself.

As a result I've lost the certitude I once held in the local church. I now can only trust in God. Cuz I'm hopeless. And it hurts to admit it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Wow, that meaning of the thread was completely lost on me. Went right over my head...

Our beliefs, spiritual, and Biblical convictions, became precious to us. And to the degree we've been invested in them, like an all in life commitment, the more and deeper it hurts when the rug is pulled out from under them...

"Your word, o Lord, is eternal. It stands firm in the heavens."

[aron]

I kind of wanted to create a contrast on this thread. First is a continuation of bearbear's idea of a "supernatural worldview" and "works of power of the Holy Spirit." Second is to contrast that with what we typically do, which is inject our own soulish reaction to the world we see, including imposing our cultural and personal agendas upon the Bible we read. Nee talked about this, as did Lee, but somehow they thought they were immune from this. Somehow God had given them a special dispensation. "Witness Lee: even when he's wrong he's right", we would say. I remember current Blended, RK, saying of Lee, that "No self" was involved in his ministry. I think this is actually the most pernicious self, because it has convinced us that it doesn't exist: it's fully concealed and thus free to wreak its havoc. Was there no self when Lee established the Daystar Motor Home company with son Timothy at the helm, then began to shake down the parishoners from his pulpit? No self involved when he appointed his son Philip to run LSM? Actually we took a lot from a fellow human and treated it as if it were from God. We created a "God who died", when the truth came out and the foundation of our spiritual worldview was revealed as made of sand. Lee's feet were made of clay, just like you and me. Surprise, surprise. So he tried to expose the Shanghai elders: "How did you feel" when the truth came out, but he really exposed his whole system.

The fact is that we are human, and we respond imperfectly to the perfect God. And that includes Mssrs Nee & Lee, the current Blendeds in Anaheim, and the rest of us. So I would like to revisit my earlier discussion, of the "open heavens" in John 1:51, the "servants under me" as related by the Roman centurion in Luke 7, and the scene in front of the throne in Revelations 1 through 3.

Now, why did I pick these three sets of scripture as my portals to the supernatural world? Admittedly they are arbitrary. Someone else might have picked 3 entirely different passages. So I admit my subjectivity here. John 1:51 is interesting to me because it's at the end of the clearly introductory first chapter of John's gospel. Immediately after this the "signs" begin, with the wedding feast at Cana, Galilee in John chapter 2. So this verse, 1:51, stands as a kind of coda to the introduction, and arguably it opens the works of power that follow. If you want to know where Nathaniel saw heavens open, and angels of God ascending and descending, you might start with the miracle of water turning into wine in John Chapter 2. And so forth.

But my raising this verse was mainly to show how Lee with his own agenda moved the conversation away from the actual verse at hand, and on to his underlying motive. Jesus didn't talk in John 1:51 about the church. But because Jacob had commented about the place of his dream in Genesis 28, "Surely this is the gate of heaven; this is the house of God", then Lee turned the attention away from angels ascending and descending, to the Church of Nee and Lee. Nifty move, huh? Likewise, when Jacob poured the oil on the rock, Lee said that was the outpoured Holy Spirit. But the Genesis 28 passage doesn't mention the Holy Spirit, nor does Jesus in John 1:51; is the outpoured Spirit the same as angels ascending and descending upon the heavenly ladder? Or something different? No comment from Lee. "Much traffic" is all we get to acknowledge the actual text.

So the contents of the verse get re-directed to what is profitable for Lee to cover. And the same goes for the information given by the Roman Centurion in Luke 7. No mention of "I have servants under me, and I tell this one..." We instead focus on the next verse: "You just say the word and my servant will be healed"; as if that were all the germane information in this passage. But the Roman shared in detail of the background of the working, and Jesus marveled, and the writer Luke conveyed the information. Why ignore it? Perhaps because it's not central to your "God's economy" or "normal church life" schema.

Lastly, the fall of the angels in Genesis 6 doesn't get much coverage. Think of this: the Bible arguably shows us three falls: Lucifer/Satan in Ezekiel 14/Isaiah 28, the fall of the human race in Genesis 3, and the fall of the angels in Genesis 6 (which is subsequent to, and entirely tied up with, the fallen human race [!!] ). So Jesus shows up and constantly is portrayed as doing battle with fallen spirits who usurp humankind, and oppress them, and this evil spirits/demons connection to Genesis 6 is clearly established in supporting non-canonical literature, and is even referenced in places like Jude verse 6, and yet it is not "central to the divine economy" of Lee so it is ignored. As BP liked to say "We don't care for that".

I am not saying we should become demon fighters and miracle workers. I am saying that we ignore the text because it doesn't prop up our world view. We create a "supernatural worldview" based on whatever texts are convenient, and ignore the rest. And Lee pretended that he focused on the "pure word", as if his approach was equal in purity to the scriptural text itself. News flash: it wasn't. Nor is mine, or yours, which is why we have discussions. A tad of humility is in order here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I Lastly, the fall of the angels in Genesis 6 doesn't get much coverage. Think of this: the Bible arguably shows us three falls...

The fall of the angels in Genesis 6, in my last post, actually was a kind of side-track. I was trying to get back to the theme, seen in Revelations 1-3. Here's my revised version:

Lastly, the speaking in Revs 2 & 3 is interesting. First you have Jesus speaking to the angel of the church, then the speaking concludes with a blessing to those who have ears to hear what the Spirit is speaking to the churches.

So Jesus speaking to an angel of the church somehow becomes the Spirit speaking to the church. Is the recipient angel at the beginning, the same speaking Spirit at the end? If not, why do these two messengers overlap like this? If this is what it is saying, literally, and it doesn't jibe with our theology, was John wrong here? Did John make the same mistake 7 times, in each epistle to each church? Was he being sloppy, and not checking his typesetting? Getting the angel confused with the Holy Spirit? I think not. John was very careful in his composition, and I think he's telling us something here.

But my main point was simply that we were under a ministry that focused on the ministry, not on the word. So we ignored the word when it wasn't convenient to the ministry. I am trying to look at what the word actually says here, not what we might wish it said if it lined up with our presuppositions more conveniently. As I said earlier, I'm just a doofus on the bus. Looking at the word of God. "The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John," Etc etc...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I think this is actually the most pernicious self, because it has convinced us that it doesn't exist: it's fully concealed and thus free to wreak its havoc.

A snake in the open is better than a snake in the grass.

Originally Posted by aron

I am saying that we ignore the text because it doesn't prop up our world view. We create a "supernatural worldview" based on whatever texts are convenient, and ignore the rest.

In a sense we create our own Holodeck ... and take it as real. It works for awhile. And feels good. But reality is relentless ...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

In a sense we create our own Holodeck ... and take it as real. It works for awhile. And feels good. But reality is relentless ...

Witness Lee visited us in Santa Cruz in 1970 and I had dinner with him along with 3 others. It was at the daughter of Karl Hammond’s house. I remember Lee praying strongly for the Blood of Christ. Maybe he was praying for himself or for all of us. I have often reflected, was it Lee, or was it us as individuals who put our trust in a person. Lee was being Lee. Karl Hammond shared with me one time that he had gone to Taiwan because he heard all these swirling rumors about Lee. He said he came back satisfied that they were not true. However, Karl was always seen as the outsider by Los Angelos/ Anaheim, I guess because he was a maverick. Of course, looking back that was our salvation in Santa Cruz at least while I was there.

Interestingly, I have an article from Christianity Today from February 1969. I didn’t think of it much when I saw it but it was a precursor of things to come. It stated, “Carefully castigating all Pentecostal excesses, Witness Lee, scholarly “apostle” of the new in China’s indigenous church, generates a frenzy all his own. He is dividing not only the tranquil waters of the faithful in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asia but the hegemony established by imprisoned Watchman Nee as well….Even founder Nee will have to follow the teaching of the self-proclaimed apostle or find himself ‘jobless’ Asia News Reports quotes ambitious Lee as saying in one of his more brazen pontifications.” One wonders why Lee really came and settled in the US e.g. to help his children, make more money etc. Also, who were those brothers who checked him out since I know they went to Taiwan. Maybe those who were in disagreement with Lee were kept away.

I have mentioned before that I remember Tim S. told me in Detroit when we first arrived there that he and Ron K. were trained in Los Angelos/Anaheim by Witness Lee. He said it in such a way as to minimize my experience in S.C. There was a certain superiority which existed among some of those in Los Angelos/Anaheim and that may well have been their undoing. They believed they had been trained, prepared and commissioned to lead the Recovery through migration. Also, they expected the same kind of increase they had experienced in Los Angelos. As it turned out their training didn’t amount to much.

In 1972 the Church in Los Angelos published a projection paper, “Prospective Migration Throughout USA and Emigration to Europe, Israel and other Continents” listing each year’s projected growth. As of 1972 they listed Los Angelos as having 5 halls comprising 1,050 people and in “other places” 26 churches with 2,600 people or a total of 3,650 people. This paper listed expected migrations and subdivisions of the Church in Los Angelos until the year 1982 where they expected to have a total of 230 churches and 66,000 people comprising migrations throughout the US and to Eastern/Western Europe and the Middle East. Of course, by 1982 they expected to have 11,000 people in 72 halls in Los Angelos. At the bottom they note that the increases were “Based upon rate of annual increase of 35%”. I guess they fell short.

Once we (all of us) became convinced that every word uttered by Lee was golden and divine we were finished. It was like we had resurrected the golden calf. What should we have expected? Lee may have been caught up in the adulation but we were blinded and couldn’t see beyond our noses. Of course, we weren’t close to the action so to some extent we looked to John Ingals and others for the cue. As much as I thought highly of John and others, they were caught up in what they thought was an historic movement led by a living Apostle, however flawed.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Dave

who were those brothers who checked him out since I know they went to Taiwan. Maybe those who were in disagreement with Lee were kept away.

And I wonder about the trip Lee made to Taiwan with several dozen strapping young American men in 1968 or so. Ostensibly it had some divine purpose but looking back, Lee returning to Taiwan with the Americans seems like MacArthur retaking the Philippines after the disaster of Bataan and Corregidor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Do...nds_Leyte1.jpg

[aron]

Originally Posted by Dave

Witness Lee visited us in Santa Cruz in 1970 and I had dinner with him along with 3 others. It was at the daughter of Karl Hammond’s house...

Did you get invited because you were one of the top recruiters? Like the salesman who hits $100,000 in a month getting to meet the chairman?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by aron

Did you get invited because you were one of the top recruiters? Like the salesman who hits $100,000 in a month getting to meet the chairman?

You might say something like that. Karl and I really started Santa Cruz from scratch and I guess it was like a reward for my efforts in helping to build S.C. On the other hand, I got along well with Karl even though he was a difficult person for most and he said he was "grooming" me to be an elder though at 24 I had no interest. Actually, I don't think I even understood the concept of being an elder. I was working the campuses bringing people to Jesus. In Santa Cruz there weren't a lot of other Christian groups which we could rob, unlike Detroit which was loaded with Christian groups. Of course, I didn't make any effort to bring in other Christians since Santa Cruz was a haven for unsaved people who were searching for answers. So, a goodly number of our "recruits" were those we brought in and baptized them in the Pacific Ocean. It was a wild time because of all the new people we had brought in. Even though WL later asked me to come to Detroit I wish I had stayed in Santa Cruz. It was the highlight of my LC experience.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

Even though WL later asked me to come to Detroit I wish I had stayed in Santa Cruz. It was the highlight of my LC experience.

From my understanding, Santa Cruz was far enough away from LA and Anaheim that it could actually function as a genuine "local church", and not a branch office of the Local Church of Witness Lee/Living Stream Corp. I believe the same was true for Berkeley and maybe some others as well. Having been "born and raised" in Orange County (just minutes from Anaheim) I never got to experience anything like you did in Santa Cruz. The closest thing may have been when Lee initiated "The Young People's churches" (circa 1977) in Orange County - Costa Mesa, Irvine, Fullerton and some others. Those were some exciting times, and brought a breath of fresh air...but of course it was short-lived...Lee and some of his minions cooked up a great "rebellion", which of course had to be quashed. I was bussed up to Berkeley to that crazy, infamous Memorial Day conference (78?). We had barely been back a day or two and there was an emergency meeting called where Lee put down the hatchet. I remember that meeting well...one young person, usually an older one chosen to be the representative, was chosen to stand up and "repent" to Witness Lee as he sat in the front with a smug look of satisfaction. Looking back, if that didn't seal the deal of making us a personality cult, then I don't know what did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

It was a wild time because of all the new people we had brought in. Even though WL later asked me to come to Detroit I wish I had stayed in Santa Cruz.

It was a common practice of WL and also TC to uproot the fruitful brothers, and then relocate them elsewhere. The result was a breach in fellowship between the shepherds and their sheep, with the subsequent "reattachment" of the saints to new leaders connected to headquarters.

I watched this occur repeatedly in the LC's. It was just another proof that both WL and TC were more interested in building their empires, than building God's house and family.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The closest thing may have been when Lee initiated "The Young People's churches" (circa 1977) in Orange County - Costa Mesa, Irvine, Fullerton and some others. Those were some exciting times, and brought a breath of fresh air...but of course it was short-lived...Lee and some of his minions cooked up a great "rebellion", which of course had to be quashed. I was bussed up to Berkeley to that crazy, infamous Memorial Day conference (78?).

That would be May of 1977. We had our own version of "crazy" in Chicago.

I was part of two LC migrations. Definitely my most joyful and fruitful times. Both were subsequently damaged by meddling from headquarters, both Anaheim and Cleveland.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was a common practice of WL and also TC to uproot the fruitful brothers, and then relocate them elsewhere. The result was a breach in fellowship between the shepherds and their sheep, with the subsequent "reattachment" of the saints to new leaders connected to headquarters.

Whenever I visit the locality of my youth, I find it refreshing the same responsible brothers are there. On the surface, I have respect they haven't been relocated and since there is a history, I regard these brothers far more favorably than the blendeds.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Dave

Even though WL later asked me to come to Detroit I wish I had stayed in Santa Cruz. It was the highlight of my LC experience.

As Ohio wrote, it was the policy to uproot people, so they couldn't be truly local; they couldn't get attached to the local assembly, area, city, or neighbors. Instead, people were to be for the ministry. WL would rather uproot a fruitful serving person into an unfruitful position, and suffer loss, rather than let them become too successful in one spot, and generate a a competing kingdom. Just look at what happened with both DYL & TC. No, for the sake of the ministry they needed to be rooted up and moved.

I once went back to my old local church after about 8 years away. All the young people (HS & College) were gone. They were all either "serving" the ministry somewhere else, or they had gone into the world. The "local" in the local church was revealed as a convenient fiction.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

From my understanding, Santa Cruz was far enough away from LA and Anaheim that it could actually function as a genuine "local church", and not a branch office of the Local Church of Witness Lee/Living Stream Corp. I believe the same was true for Berkeley and maybe some others as well. Having been "born and raised" in Orange County (just minutes from Anaheim) I never got to experience anything like you did in Santa Cruz. The closest thing may have been when Lee initiated "The Young People's churches" (circa 1977) in Orange County - Costa Mesa, Irvine, Fullerton and some others. Those were some exciting times, and brought a breath of fresh air...but of course it was short-lived...Lee and some of his minions cooked up a great "rebellion", which of course had to be quashed. I was bussed up to Berkeley to that crazy, infamous Memorial Day conference (78?). We had barely been back a day or two and there was an emergency meeting called where Lee put down the hatchet. I remember that meeting well...one young person, usually an older one chosen to be the representative, was chosen to stand up and "repent" to Witness Lee as he sat in the front with a smug look of satisfaction. Looking back, if that didn't seal the deal of making us a personality cult, then I don't know what did.

Your comments remind me of an experience both Don O and I went through in Detroit. This was in 1973. Don and I were sent to Berkeley by the elders because of their growth in young people to find out what they were doing. It was exciting being out there seeing what was going on. We came back and over the next several weeks we instituted changes. All I can say is that young people were attending our meetings like never before. It was a little bit crazy but energizing. The problem was that Don and I had some concern about the elders support despite sending us out to Berkeley. They seemed to be putting on the brakes. In any case, some of the sisters painted our metal chairs different colors as they were excited about what was going on. It was fun but kind of crazy. What happened next was that a couple sisters talked to the elders and said we were rebelling. In the next meeting Don and I walked in and it was very solemn and the song was "follow brothers"... Don was overwhelmed and cried like a baby in the meeting and I was like "what just happened"? They never asked us anything and just blasted us. In any case, it was probably the beginning of the end for me. Any further effort in trying to reach young people was over. The next step: in early 1974 everyone "migrated" to Ft. Lauderdale and that was another disaster. Ron K went to Anaheim.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by aron

As Ohio wrote, it was the policy to uproot people, so they couldn't be truly local; they couldn't get attached to the local assembly, area, city, or neighbors. Instead, people were to be for the ministry. WL would rather uproot a fruitful serving person into an unfruitful position, and suffer loss, rather than let them become too successful in one spot, and generate a a competing kingdom. Just look at what happened with both DYL & TC. No, for the sake of the ministry they needed to be rooted up and moved.

I once went back to my old local church after about 8 years away. All the young people (HS & College) were gone. They were all either "serving" the ministry somewhere else, or they had gone into the world. The "local" in the local church was revealed as a convenient fiction.

I think you are on to something. When I came back from Detroit (to Santa Cruz) after WL asked me to move there (Detroit) and I shared what happened to Karl he was a little miffed although he thought that maybe WL was giving a blessing on his efforts since WL was taking one of his key people to migrate to Detroit (Please note that WL had called Karl and asked him to send me to a conference in Detroit and Karl was obviously concerned before I left) Karl had mixed emotions but saw it as an overall positive and at least he spun it that way at the time. Of course, looking back WL probably saw an opportunity to undermine SC since WL never discussed me moving to Detroit with Karl either before or after.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

Whenever I visit the locality of my youth, I find it refreshing the same responsible brothers are there. On the surface, I have respect they haven't been relocated and since there is a history, I regard these brothers far more favorably than the blendeds.

Wish I could say the same thing. But the only elder I know in Dallas, while there back when I was, wasn't one then. The others have moved on, moved out (like Don R), or are part of the BBs. Oddly, Dallas seems to rock along in somewhat obscurity. That may be a ggod thing for them.

[aron]

John 10:22-39 Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

There are some interesting thoughts embedded here, and I will note two of them. First, "I and the Father are one", which was completely misinterpreted by the opposing Jews, and probably by many readers subsequently as well. Jesus is one with the Father, just as the Roman Centurion in Luke 7 is one with Caesar. Jesus is completely subservient to the Father. Jesus' will is completely subsumed by the Father's will. "I come to do Thy will; behold in the roll of the book it is written concerning Me".

The rest of us have failed; yes we've seen the glory, but shortly thereafter we also attempted to impose our own will within that of the divine. We are still, in a word, disobedient. We may get fooled, in so doing, because we are partly obedient, but to God we are still impure. And the disease of the tree of Knowledge is that we can see, in part: we can see the problems, and the failure of others but we miss our own. Witness Lee probably believed strongly in his message, and in his work. He arguably got up earlier each morning, and worked harder, than many of us. But he was blind to the imposition of self, both personal, and cultural/societal into the will of God. He ignored the pernicious effects of merchanizing, of manipulating others, of lack of balance and accountability.

But when the Angel of the Lord spoke with Moses, JHWH Himself spoke. Why? Because the Angel was one with the Father JHWH of hosts. When the Angel spoke with Hagar she said, "You are the God who sees me", because through the obedient Angel God saw Hagar, and heard her cry there in the desert. These are indeed the "eyes of God, running to an fro throughout the earth". When Gabriel stood before Mary, and spoke, God spoke to Mary through the messenger. Gabriel did not distort the message: it came through purely. Gabriel's speaking was God's speaking. The Angel of the Lord could say, "I and the Father are one". So could Gabriel, there before Mary and Zechariah, in Luke's gospel account. We cannot. But we see Jesus, who came to earth, like us, and yet was one with the Father in Heaven. Jesus is the unique heavenly ladder, the unique Gate of Heaven, the unique abode of the Father God on earth. We fail, but in our failure we can acknowledge God's Christ. We see Him and are risen to our feet, to follow by faith.

God's eyes run to and fro throughout the earth, and not a sparrow falls but the Father doesn't know. But our eyes are clouded by our soul's will, by our volition, our intention, our purpose. My definition of intention here, is "a desired goal". In the divine kingdom, we are ruined by desire. James wrote, "You want but you do not have." Jesus wanted nothing, but the Father's house. Jesus said, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God", and He showed us, fully. The psalmist wrote, "One thing have I desired of JHWH, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of JHWH all the days of my life"... Elsewhere the psalmist wrote "JHWH delights in those who fear Him/those who put their hope in His unfailing love." Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, the Savior, the Chosen Vessel, the King of Israel, was the One who fulfilled God's plan. And so God said, "This is the One in whom I delight." Jesus sought God's kingdom, God's will, God's delight, and so He WAS God's delight. The life of Jesus therefore shows us the way home to our Father God in heaven. "Our Father God, in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done here on earth, just as it is in heaven... etc".

People like Lee, and Jonathan Cahn (discussed on another thread) are not true charlatans, but rather have introduced their own will, or volition, into the process of following God. They are partly obedient, and they do want to declare the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, but they also want book sales and conference centers and the message gets distorted. So Lee got his name read in the halls of Congress, and Cahn got breakfast with the President of the U.S. They got honor and influence in this age; as Jesus said, "You have your reward." But there is another, the heavenly reward.

But Jesus is the Messenger (Angel) who is also the Message (Word of God). Jesus is the one.

The second thought from this part of John 10: "You are Gods". The Psalm that Jesus referenced continues, and says, "...but you will die like men". It's about disobedience: these angels, the sons of God, who disobeyed, were cast into Tartarus. They were once immortal as gods, but they ultimately died like men. They disobeyed, transgressed the divine boundaries (cf Gen 6, Jude v. 6, Rev. 12:4 &c) and became mortal. So the Psalm warns not to insinuate your will into God's command. I believe that is what Witness Lee referenced when he asked the Shanghai elders, "How did you feel when you removed Nee from your midst?" Their emotional investment in Nee's system (with Nee as uber-apostle) exposed their fallen human souls, and Lee used it against them.

I was once fully invested, body soul and spirit, into Nee & Lee's organization-building and ministry-uplifting scheme. And I felt it, too, when it got exposed, and died for me. But this has also happened since, because it's natural for us to impose our volition: we see something wrong (the proverbial splinter) and then get angry, or frightened, and are provoked into reaction (the proverbial beam). But our fear makes us weak, and also corrupt: Moses could only strike down an Egyptian. God buried Pharoah and the whole Egyptian army under the sea.

"Wait on the LORD/Be of good courage/Wait, I say, on the LORD."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

John 10:22-39 Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

There are some interesting thoughts embedded here, and I will note two of them. First, "I and the Father are one", which was completely misinterpreted by the opposing Jews, and probably by many readers subsequently as well. Jesus is one with the Father, just as the Roman Centurion in Luke 7 is one with Caesar. Jesus is completely subservient to the Father. Jesus' will is completely subsumed by the Father's will. "I come to do Thy will; behold in the roll of the book it is written concerning Me".

The rest of us have failed; yes we've seen the glory, but shortly thereafter we also attempted to impose our own will within that of the divine. We are still, in a word, disobedient. We may get fooled, in so doing, because we are partly obedient, but to God we are still impure. And the disease of the tree of Knowledge is that we can see, in part: we can see the problems, and the failure of others but we miss our own. Witness Lee probably believed strongly in his message, and in his work. He arguably got up earlier each morning, and worked harder, than many of us. But he was blind to the imposition of self, both personal, and cultural/societal into the will of God. He ignored the pernicious effects of merchanizing, of manipulating others, of lack of balance and accountability.

But when the Angel of the Lord spoke with Moses, JHWH Himself spoke. Why? Because the Angel was one with the Father JHWH of hosts. When the Angel spoke with Hagar she said, "You are the God who sees me", because through the obedient Angel God saw Hagar, and heard her cry there in the desert. These are indeed the "eyes of God, running to an fro throughout the earth". When Gabriel stood before Mary, and spoke, God spoke to Mary through the messenger. Gabriel did not distort the message: it came through purely. Gabriel's speaking was God's speaking. The Angel of the Lord could say, "I and the Father are one". So could Gabriel, there before Mary and Zechariah, in Luke's gospel account. We cannot. But we see Jesus, who came to earth, like us, and yet was one with the Father in Heaven. Jesus is the unique heavenly ladder, the unique Gate of Heaven, the unique abode of the Father God on earth. We fail, but in our failure we can acknowledge God's Christ. We see Him and are risen to our feet, to follow by faith.

God's eyes run to and fro throughout the earth, and not a sparrow falls but the Father doesn't know. But our eyes are clouded by our soul's will, by our volition, our intention, our purpose. My definition of intention here, is "a desired goal". In the divine kingdom, we are ruined by desire. James wrote, "You want but you do not have." Jesus wanted nothing, but the Father's house. Jesus said, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God", and He showed us, fully. The psalmist wrote, "One thing have I desired of JHWH, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of JHWH all the days of my life"... Elsewhere the psalmist wrote "JHWH delights in those who fear Him/those who put their hope in His unfailing love." Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, the Savior, the Chosen Vessel, the King of Israel, was the One who fulfilled God's plan. And so God said, "This is the One in whom I delight." Jesus sought God's kingdom, God's will, God's delight, and so He WAS God's delight. The life of Jesus therefore shows us the way home to our Father God in heaven. "Our Father God, in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done here on earth, just as it is in heaven... etc".

People like Lee, and Jonathan Cahn (discussed on another thread) are not true charlatans, but rather have introduced their own will, or volition, into the process of following God. They are partly obedient, and they do want to declare the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, but they also want book sales and conference centers and the message gets distorted. So Lee got his name read in the halls of Congress, and Cahn got breakfast with the President of the U.S. They got honor and influence in this age; as Jesus said, "You have your reward." But there is another, the heavenly reward.

But Jesus is the Messenger (Angel) who is also the Message (Word of God). Jesus is the one.

The second thought from this part of John 10: "You are Gods". The Psalm that Jesus referenced continues, and says, "...but you will die like men". It's about disobedience: these angels, the sons of God, who disobeyed, were cast into Tartarus. They were once immortal as gods, but they ultimately died like men. They disobeyed, transgressed the divine boundaries (cf Gen 6, Jude v. 6, Rev. 12:4 &c) and became mortal. So the Psalm warns not to insinuate your will into God's command. I believe that is what Witness Lee referenced when he asked the Shanghai elders, "How did you feel when you removed Nee from your midst?" Their emotional investment in Nee's system (with Nee as uber-apostle) exposed their fallen human souls, and Lee used it against them.

I was once fully invested, body soul and spirit, into Nee & Lee's organization-building and ministry-uplifting scheme. And I felt it, too, when it got exposed, and died for me. But this has also happened since, because it's natural for us to impose our volition: we see something wrong (the proverbial splinter) and then get angry, or frightened, and are provoked into reaction (the proverbial beam). But our fear makes us weak, and also corrupt: Moses could only strike down an Egyptian. God buried Pharoah and the whole Egyptian army under the sea.

"Wait on the LORD/Be of good courage/Wait, I say, on the LORD."

What is JHWH? Who is Father JHWH?

Is that like Father Dick, OFM?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What is JHWH?

Jehovah. Jahweh. The LORD. God.

It appears that there are a number of written ways to present the Jewish deity, and so occasionally I use variants.

[aron]

There are a number of books out which are by people who have had "near death" experiences, and returned to consciousness telling about the kingdom of heaven. The ones I have seen are all of a Christian bent, though it might be interesting to see the testimony of a Muslim or Buddhist who briefly died and came back telling tales.

I'm typically not too interested. I never read the best-seller by Todd Burpo, though it's hard not to be aware of it. The last one I read was given to me by a Christian friend. My lack of curiosity is due to the fact that if they present a novel view of heaven I am suspicious. Why did God hide information, to reveal it now? Likewise if their experience confirms the Holy writ, then why is it necessary? What does it add? I am reminded of Jesus' story of Lazarus and the rich man. Abraham told the rich man, "They have Moses' writings" to warn them of the penalty of sin. They don't need people to rise from the dead. I feel largely the same way. We have a book called the Bible, which I find to be eminently satisfying in its view of the "divine and mystical realm".

"Let me live that I may praise Thee", said the psalmist. According to Peter in Acts 2, the psalmist was in spirit, channeling the Spirit of Christ, and revealing both the interior mileu of the coming Messiah, as well as those in the heavenly realm. The near-death survivor says, for example, that heaven is a peaceful place. But I know that the heart of the Messiah is peaceful. That is clearly revealed, again and again, in the testimonies of the NT, and in the typologies of the spiritual seeking ones (prophets, psalmists, etc) in the OT (see Jesus to the 2 disciples in Luke 24 on the road to Emmaus).

God let Jesus Christ live, though He went to the pit God did not let the pit seal over him. Jesus came to the earth, under all the "rulers of the authorities of the air", but never was touched. They never closed over Him. The heavens were always open, and the angels of God ascending and descending. Marvelous! What can we who have sinned, who failed, do but rejoice! Here is our hope! Here is our release! Here is our victory -- believe into Jesus Christ, and call upon His name!

O Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner!!

Praise the Lord, hallelujah! Amen, come Lord Jesus!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Jehovah. Jahweh. The LORD. God.

It appears that there are a number of written ways to present the Jewish deity, and so occasionally I use variants.

Like YHVH, YHWH, Yahway, Jahway, Yeherwah, etc?

What's the purpose of all these variants in the English language?

I thought "Jehovah" was the accepted English translation.

Is this like speaking in tongues, where every one has their own name for God which no one else can understand?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Like YHVH, YHWH, Yahway, Jahway, Yeherwah, etc?

What's the purpose of all these variants in the English language?

I thought "Jehovah" was the accepted English translation.

Is this like speaking in tongues, where every one has their own name for God which no one else can understand?

Actually this goes to my current hypothesis, which is that the NT doesn't show us Jesus Christ as much as it attempts to point to the OT showing us Jesus Christ. The NT was written to people who believed that the OT was scripture, and the NT writers tried to convey to their contemporaries that the prophesied Messiah, the Son of David who would be the savior of Israel, and whose kingdom would never end, was fulfilled in none other than the humble carpenter from Galilee Jesus, who was killed by being nailed on a cross.

So the OT portrayals of God, Jehovah, LORD, become salient to us as we had not previously considered. And that of course includes names. Names are huge. Adam got to name every creature, but was not allowed to handle the name of his Creator. So I suspect they sidled around this with the so-called tetragrammaton, among other means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton

And this didn't end in the NT. Why did Paul refer to God as "the God of peace" and James called God "the Father of lights"? It probably revealed some aspect of the writers' relations with God at that point, rather than something immutable about God's nature (though the scripture also points in a shadowy way to the nature of God also).

We who live in the shadow of death consider Jehovah Jirah and LORD Sabaoth even as we consider the name of the Messiah, Jesus/Yeshua/Ioosus/etc.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What is JHWH?

Originally Posted by aron

Jehovah. Jahweh. The LORD. God.

It appears that there are a number of written ways to present the Jewish deity, and so occasionally I use variants.

But there's no J in Hebrew. Methinks you perchance mean the tetragrammaton YHWH.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

my current hypothesis, which is that the NT doesn't show us Jesus Christ as much as it attempts to point to the OT showing us Jesus Christ.

The problem I have with Christian scholars like WL is that they fixated on a few verses, usually from the NT, but missed the idea that NT writers were pointing to the entire OT corpus (and also texts which didn't survive, or didn't get canonized), and presented the argument that the entire extant body of literature pointed to their present situation, that of an incarnated, slain, and resurrected Son of God, who was none other than Jesus the Galilean, the long-hoped for Son of David.

So WL would hyperventilate about something in Ephesians 2 or 3, ignoring the idea that Paul, and the Ephesians, and all their contemporaries were apprehending Jesus in the OT text. Lee would hold up the OT writer claiming faithfulness to God's command, and reply, "This is nonsense. Nobody can keep the law. Salvation is by grace, not by works". Meanwhile ignoring the Galilean Jesus who fulfilled this OT type to a "t". But I say that our faith is in Jesus Christ who was the One pleasing to God, the one "in whom God delights" etc. This is both seen in OT (see e.g. Psalm 147:11) and throughout NT. Lee, however, had his NT-centric "God's economy" template, and even cast aside scriptures themselves as unprofitable if they couldn't be shoehorned into his exegeses.

But he got away with it because we were ignorant of the OT text. WL said, "There's nothing here. Move along." And we were ignorant, and believed him, and went on. If we'd lingered there, singing the psalms as Paul twice encouraged us to do, including in WL's beloved epistle to the Ephesians, then we might actually have "apprehended with all the saints, what is the height, breadth, depth", etc.

But instead WL called the scripture writers "fallen" and "natural" and diverted us to his own "interpreted word", instead, which was neatly packaged and for sale, in books, CDs, video tapes, cassettes, pamphlets, posters, and coffee mugs.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

But there's no J in Hebrew. Methinks you perchance mean the tetragrammaton YHWH.

Thank you. See -- I'm an amateur, and need practice. (Hopefully if we speak with respect, God will forgive our foolishness. God said, "Forgive, and you will be forgiven", whether you say "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" or "The Lord").Probably missed Ohio's point the first time around.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

...we were ignorant of the OT text. WL said, "There's nothing here. Move along." And we were ignorant, and believed him, and went on. If we'd lingered there, singing the psalms as Paul twice encouraged us to do, including in WL's beloved epistle to the Ephesians, then we might actually have "apprehended with all the saints, what is the height, breadth, depth", etc...

Today I argue that Lee made 3 errors in viewing the scriptural conjunctions of Old and New Testaments. He had a historically-developed lens, that of reaction to Protestantism, which was itself a reaction to Catholicism, which was a reaction to Eastern Orthodoxy, which was (probably, I am stretching here) a reaction to the nebulous and swirling heterodoxies of early Christianity. So Lee had a clearly post-Protestant lens, and was far, far away from the social and intellectual milieu in which the writers and readers of the Jesus era sought meaning, but he didn't see it. He thought his lens was pure, handed to him by God Himself. Watchman Nee, "raised up by God", had supposedly gone beyond all possible bias and ignorance. All the conceptual veils had been rent before Nee.

And culturally, Lee had an Oriental lens, which picked up on certain characteristics of the text and ignored a lot or the rest. For example, he said that the epistles to the churches in Asia in Revelations 2 & 3 showed that all churches "should be exactly identical". That is a clearly Asian cultural reaction, of trying to maintain order, which necessitates uniformity. Individuality should be not only repressed, but sought out and crushed. Why? It threatens order. So anyone in Lee's Local Churches who tried to think, and persisted in this dangerous habit, got branded as "independent", then "rebellious", or "leprous", or "ambitious" or similar castigations.

Third, Lee had a personal lens. He somehow thought that he was the unique "close follower" of the "seer of the age" Watchman Nee, and like Nee he'd been somehow elevated into the position of a "Spritual Man", with all traces of the fall somehow transformed away. The only things left for him were service and transfiguration. So Lee could engage in all kinds of manipulations and conspiracy mongering, all the while being white as snow. I bet he really believed that. But probably David Koresh also thought that he really was the last prophet of the Seventh Day Adventist spin-off group called the Branch Davidians.

We all have some subjectivity, bias, ignorance, and are partly veiled. We sloooowly remove the bondage of "self" and "old man" by seeing Jesus before us, there in both the OT and NT texts. It is a process: today I seem to focus (fixate? obsess?) on fringe stuff that seems to give me life, or at least sustain my interest, and I like writing about it here. But I have my own biases: the "rugged individual", the "free-thinker", the "cultural elite" etc. I know this. Hopefully, nonetheless, my thoughts here make some sense to others who don't share my biases (in my mind, I actually was clearly and logically following bearbear's theme of a "supernatural worldview", but that may not be evident. I spun it off from his thread for just that reason). I believe the dialogue between the Jewish and Christian texts is very rich, and we have merely begun to understand it. It is slowly opening before us, and it richly rewards those who sustain interest in its streams of life. There is a "divine and supernatural light", a real "supernatural worldview" there. The fleeting references in the NT, pointing to the Old, suggest deep, profound, and rich conceptual connections. We have hardly exhausted them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And Lee had an Oriental lens, which picked up on certain characteristics of the text and ignored a lot or the rest. For example, he said that the epistles to the churches in Asia in Revelations 2 & 3 showed that all churches "should be exactly identical". That is a clearly Asian cultural reaction, of trying to maintain order, which necessitates uniformity. Individuality should be not only repressed, but sought out and crushed. Why? It threatens order. So anyone in Lee's Local Churches who tried to think, and persisted in this bad habit, got branded a "rebel", or "leprous", or "ambitious" or similar castigations.

Had we polled a thousand thoughtful mature believers, not none would conclude what Lee did about these 7 churches. Oh yes, of course, Lee could "see things no one else could see." I heard the same thing about TC too. Such leaders we had!

No church in Revelation was identical, nor even remotely similar. The same could be said of any NT church. But Lee, in his infinite knowledge, convinced us all the differences were "negative." How far from the truth was that? Look at the Thessalonians acclaimed for spreading the word of the Lord and the Bereans noted for their study of scripture. Most of those in Revelations were praised for different aspects unique to them. These differences were all positive!

Perhaps most unsettling to us former LCers is the way Lee manipulated the Bible for his own personal gain. His own brand of Chinese leaven infected us all. Diverse viewpoints were eventually expelled from the Recovery until only Lee's teachings remained. We were all to become WL "tape recorders." Lee even went so far as to condemn all "natural affection" as honey, so that we would have no sympathy for those who left or were expelled.

[aron]

I would like to show the juxtaposition of OT & NT texts creating a novel portrayal of Jesus Christ.

We all know the longest book of the Bible. Psalm 119. Lee wasn't interested, nor, frankly, was I. But what does it say? Well it has several hundred lines, one of which says, "O how I love Your law; I meditate on it day and night". To me this says, "O how I [Jesus] love Your [the Father's] law; I [Jesus] meditate on it day and night." Jesus lived in the reality of the Father's speaking.

Now, NT: "Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him." ~John 13:1-5 ESV

There is a knowing, described in John 13. There is a meditation on God's word, day and night, described in Psalm 119. Jesus is arguably the only person in the entire world who really got into the reality of the Old Testament. Jesus knew the Father's will, down to the jot & tittle, down to the punctuation. Jesus found the reality, here on earth. Jesus didn't bypass the OT, He fulfilled it. Now, we Christians don't know the Old Testament very well, nor truly can we (on several levels), but we can struggle to see Jesus fully inhabiting the pious declarations of generations of God-seeking people, expressed in holy scripture. They fully described the framework, and Jesus fully lived in it. They hoped, prayed, and fought, and Jesus fulfilled it all, at every level, both physical and spiritual. Note that Jesus and the NT writers kept saying, "As the scripture said", or "that the scriptures might be fulfilled." And nowhere do they say that it was just the section they cited. There was a larger narrative at hand, which was suggested but not comprehensively covered in the NT usage of the OT.

But I, as a Protestant Evangelical, including my tour of the LRC, treated the Old Testament as something to be conveniently mined, and just as conveniently ignored. Lee did likewise, as is common among Protestants. We have "grace" and "faith", right? Out with the Old, in with the New. No "works" for us. But Jesus did not ignore the Old Testament. He brought it into "all the reality." We thought because we had the New Testament that we could be ignorant of the Old. We were wrong.

Lee's treatment of the Old Testament was absurdly superficial. And to compound the problem he was full of pious declarations of NT zeal, "We must do this" and "we must do that". No, the only thing we need to do, is to see Jesus Christ. If you hear His voice, you will live. My question to the Lee-ites is: do you hear Him in Psalm 119? No? Why? Because someone told you not to? Because you are good Protestants and recoil from the word "law" (even though you create your own NT law)? Why are you afraid of actually looking at the text?

We don't love God's law; we cannot. But by faith we can see Jesus loving God's law; by faith we can see, and we can live. And it's right there in front of us, in black and white. If we would only look. I mean, who thought Psalm 119 was about love? But it is: Jesus loved the Father, and obeyed Him, our Father God loved the lost sinners, and sent His Son Jesus Christ, and Jesus loved the disciples, and laid down His life for them. How can we not desire to pursue deeper into this love? I strongly argue that it is there, and it isn't hidden. It is right in front of us, calling, compelling us.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But there's no J in Hebrew. Methinks you perchance mean the tetragrammaton YHWH.

But then ... we all know that there are "H's" and "W's" in Hebrew.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Thank you. See -- I'm an amateur, and need practice. (Hopefully if we speak with respect, God will forgive our foolishness. God said, "Forgive, and you will be forgiven", whether you say "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" or "The Lord"). Probably missed Ohio's point the first time around.

Nearly every time I have heard these OT "tetragrandmas" over the years, it seemed they were accompanied by the flavor of pride. The smell of an arrogance of superiority over us lowly "Jesus" callers, using the ... gulp! ... letter "J".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nearly every time I have heard these OT "tetragrandmas" over the years, it seemed they were accompanied by the flavor of pride. The smell of an arrogance of superiority over us lowly "Jesus" callers, using the ... gulp! ... letter "J".

Like Hebrew has no J so Jesus wasn't "J"esus.

But, if there is no J in Hebrew then how are the Hebrews called "J"ews?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nearly every time I have heard these OT "tetragrandmas" over the years, it seemed they were accompanied by the flavor of pride. The smell of an arrogance of superiority over us lowly "Jesus" callers, using the ... gulp! ... letter "J".

Well, there's a couple ways that I could respond. Certainly there is a danger of being arrogant, like "my way of pronouncing a word is superior to yours". I had leftist friends back in the '80s, when the Iran-Contra thing was going on, who would pronounce Nicaragua as "HNEE-ga-ra-wa" as if that showed their intelligence and superior breeding. But they didn't pronounce Mexico as "MAY-hee-ko" or France as "La Frawnce", so why the insistence on the "proper" pronunciation of Nicaragua?

And certainly there were the legal beagles in Jesus' day, who insisted everything must be just so.

But on the other hand, the sons of the king are free. So if we want to call God "Daddy-O" or "Dad" or "Pops" or "Dad" or "Abba" or "Father God" etc we are free to do so. So we are free to use names that we want, as long as we do so with respect to God and to others. We don't insist on names as Christians, but we don't exalt terminology as superior and somehow more spiritual than others.

Probably there is balance there somewhere. I apologize if I have been annoying or distracting with my freedom.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

Interestingly, I have an article from Christianity Today from February 1969. I didn’t think of it much when I saw it but it was a precursor of things to come. It stated, “Carefully castigating all Pentecostal excesses, Witness Lee, scholarly “apostle” of the new in China’s indigenous church, generates a frenzy all his own. He is dividing not only the tranquil waters of the faithful in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asia but the hegemony established by imprisoned Watchman Nee as well….Even founder Nee will have to follow the teaching of the self-proclaimed apostle or find himself ‘jobless’ Asia News Reports quotes ambitious Lee as saying in one of his more brazen pontifications.” One wonders why Lee really came and settled in the US e.g. to help his children, make more money etc. Also, who were those brothers who checked him out since I know they went to Taiwan. Maybe those who were in disagreement with Lee were kept away.

Dave, care to clarify the bolded portion? The quotation's a little hard to follow -- i.e., is the article clear as to what it's quoting (or paraphrasing) Lee as having actually said about Nee?

(I didn't find the article online after a cursory search.)

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

As Ohio wrote, it was the policy to uproot people, so they couldn't be truly local; they couldn't get attached to the local assembly, area, city, or neighbors. Instead, people were to be for the ministry. WL would rather uproot a fruitful serving person into an unfruitful position, and suffer loss, rather than let them become too successful in one spot, and generate a a competing kingdom. Just look at what happened with both DYL & TC. No, for the sake of the ministry they needed to be rooted up and moved.

Is this what happened to Gene Gruhler?

I'm surprised that there are those who didn't get in on churching in spirit on the local ground. And what's worse you probably didn't get in on the Budweiser song. I think it was in the same time frame. I sort of liked them both.

Something far worse, around 30 years ago WL unmercifully harangued JI in a meeting blaming John for missing the proper end time setting of his song. And unrelated to this I saw a video in Irving once where WL miserably thrashed his servants for not dusting his office properly in Taiwan. Lee had got so angry about the ordeal that he called in a camera crew to express his anger to the world. And of course RG cooperated by showing it in Irving. I'm not inferring it was shown in a church meeting but to 30 or so people.
Lisbon

[aron]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Something far worse, around 30 years ago WL unmercifully harangued JI in a meeting blaming John for missing the proper end time setting of his song. And unrelated to this I saw a video in Irving once where WL miserably thrashed his servants for not dusting his office properly in Taiwan. Lee had got so angry about the ordeal that he called in a camera crew to express his anger to the world. And of course RG cooperated by showing it in Irving. I'm not inferring it was shown in a church meeting but to 30 or so people.

The closest I remember of something like this is where WL publicly humiliated TC in front of the training. TC even used the words "I am ashamed" to preface his confession that Cleveland wasn't up to Anaheim's standards.

Now I understand from Ohio, that the elders in Cleveland would have to say "I am ashamed" to TC, and then the rank-and-file members would also have to do the perp walk before the elders.

WL was the untouchable. Proper and harmonious "local church life" demanded this. But every one else was supposed to bow and scrape, all the way down. With the independent Americans, especially on the fringes, it wasn't always like this, and it could be a little more convivial. But the closer you got to the center, and the closer in cooperation you got with the center, you were supposed to see how things run. They didn't call them 'trainings' for nothing; ultimately it was about lining up with the apostle. That was the lodestar of the Lord's Recovery; that was the ground. And the shaming and bullying were simply reinforcement mechanisms to make sure everyone got conditioned, and got into the message.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The closest I remember of something like this is where WL publicly humiliated TC in front of the training. TC even used the words "I am ashamed" to preface his confession that Cleveland wasn't up to Anaheim's standards.

It makes me sick remembering how Lee used to rebuke all the Recovery after every storm, making us all feel so shameful and guilty -- only to learn that he and his son were to blame for all the problems damaging the churches.

Like I said it makes me sick.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

And what's worse you probably didn't get in on the Budweiser song.

There was a brother here in the Seattle area who passed away 14-15 years ago. Prior to his passing and being in the same home meeting with him, he recounted waiting in line in a supermarket. The man in front of him was buying Budweiser beer, the brother began singing the LC song with the Budweiser tune. One way of speaking the gospel...or singing it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It makes me sick remembering how Lee used to rebuke all the Recovery after every storm, making us all feel so shameful and guilty -- only to learn that he and his son were to blame for all the problems damaging the churches.

The so-called storms were actually a reaction to what was bothering the conscience of many. I am not sure what the last storm was a reaction to, but for the ones in the late 70's and late 80's, Phillip Lee seemed to be a catalyst while Witness Lee choose to do nothing about it. Of course the blended brothers would spin it as Witness Lee was waiting on the Lord what to do.

As for the last turmoil of 2004-2006, you could say the blended brothers were the catalyst, and the concerned brothers were reacting. If there were no problems up to that point, why was the Phoenix Accord needed in February2003?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Terry

There was a brother here in the Seattle area who passed away 14-15 years ago. Prior to his passing and being in the same home meeting with him, he recounted waiting in line in a supermarket. The man in front of him was buying Budweiser beer, the brother began singing the LC song with the Budweiser tune. One way of speaking the gospel...or singing it.

Oh how awesome !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I remembered the words, I'd sing it today myself! The only words I remember is: When you say "Lord Jesus"...you've said it all. :-) People need a little picker upper in this day and age ! Too much drama everywhere we turn!

[Cassidy]

aron > We all know the longest book of the Bible. Psalm 119. Lee wasn't interested, nor, frankly, was I.

Aron, you may not have been interested but Witness Lee definitely was. Take for example the Life-study of Exodus Chapters 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60. Collectively, these are a beautiful exposition of Psalm 119. It shows the thought of the psalmist, the relationship to the New Testament, and the application of the believer's walk and living before the Lord Jesus.

Not only was he interested but unfolded Psalm 119 in all it's beauty.

What's wrong with that?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

aron > We all know the longest book of the Bible. Psalm 119. Lee wasn't interested, nor, frankly, was I.

Aron, you may not have been interested but Witness Lee definitely was. Take for example the Life-study of Exodus Chapters 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60. Collectively, these are a beautiful exposition of Psalm 119.

I looked at Chapters 56, 57, and 58 on the ministry books web site, and had two problems with what I read. First, what's the difference between vain, natural searching and seeking of the Psalmist, according to his fallen concepts, and revelations of the coming Christ? I never really got that. Clearly in Psalm 119, from what I read, it's in the "revelation" category. But how to distinguish between vanity and reality? Lee shuttled back and forth between condemnation and praise, but it all seemed quite arbitrary to me.

Second, Witness Lee ignored the incarnation of Jesus Christ, arguably the most important thing in the Bible. Lee started off with the heart of the seeking one there in Psalm 119, pursuing after God. He thought that was good. Then he switched to the heart of the seeking one after God, in the NT reality (Ephesians, Colossians, etc). But what about the heart of Jesus Christ, on earth, seeking after His Father's will? It is not mentioned, which I find strange.

Jesus said, "These things were written concerning Me". The subject of scripture, especially the Psalms, is not the NT believer. Do we see ourselves in Psalm 119? Or do we see Jesus Christ? Hebrews 2:9 said, "But we see Jesus". I guess the LSM answer would be that the processed Triune God is in us as the Spirit of Jesus Christ, including His humanity, but why be so tortuous? Why not simply say that the true seeking One is not the Psalmist, nor Lee or you or I, but the Obedient Son. Jesus was the fulfillment of the scripture, not we the sinners. "This is My Son, the Beloved. Hear Him." Don't focus on Witness Lee or King David or aron the forum typist. It is Jesus, not the pious NT believer, that is the subject here. Somehow Lee missed this simple but obvious point.

[aron]

Psalm 119:8 I will keep Your statutes; Do not utterly forsake me.

Who is "I" here? Witness Lee? Who is "Your" here? Jesus? No, I would argue that "I" is Jesus and "You" is the Father. Peter made this clear. "David's grave is with us to this day" So who kept the statutes? Who was not utterly forsaken? It was Jesus. "Father, glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You."

Instead Lee says that the pious subject is the OT saint, or the NT Jesus believer. In either case he misses the incarnated Christ. And the whole thing, to me, is the incarnated Christ. He is the one who stirs the drink, who makes the whole machine go. Cut him out and I don't know what gospel you are preaching.

Now, I don't have my recovery version in front of me, but I would like to see one footnote indicating anything like this. Christ is the fulfillment of the law. Not David the Psalmist, nor the NT believer. I didn't see anything like this in the Exodus messages Cassidy mentioned.

[Cassidy]

Aron> Now, I don't have my recovery version in front of me, but I would like to see one footnote indicating anything like this. Christ is the fulfillment of the law.

Don't fret if you tossed it! The online Recovery Version is available!

Psalm 119 Footnote 2(1) says "Christ is the reality of the law as the testimony of God. The testimony of God signifies Christ, the embodiment of God (Col 2:9), as the living portrait of what God is."

There is the one you requested.... but there is more.....

....from the online NT Recovery Version typing in "fulfillment" in the footnote search there are 86 hits and many if not most of those are related to some aspect of Christ fulfilling something about the OT.

Furthermore, there is an excellent book you can read online called "The Fulfillment of the Tabernacle and the Offerings in the writings of John".

I do not think most people object to this aspect of Witness Lee's ministry.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

I looked at Chapters 56, 57, and 58 on the ministry books web site, and had two problems with what I read. First, what's the difference between vain, natural searching and seeking of the Psalmist, according to his fallen concepts, and revelations of the coming Christ? I never really got that. Clearly in Psalm 119, from what I read, it's in the "revelation" category. But how to distinguish between vanity and reality? Lee shuttled back and forth between condemnation and praise, but it all seemed quite arbitrary to me.

One practical result of these teachings is that people become focused on what Witness Lee taught about particular passages. When Lee would parse out which portions of the Bible he considered "revelation," versus which portions he considered "natural," then the Bible becomes a kind of minefield. We have to be careful where we step. If we dare to appreciate some passage that Lee has already deemed "natural," then we'll hear it from those who are more "in tune with the ministry."

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

One practical result of these teachings is that people become focused on what Witness Lee taught about particular passages. When Lee would parse out which portions of the Bible he considered "revelation," versus which portions he considered "natural," then the Bible becomes a kind of minefield. We have to be careful where we step. If we dare to appreciate some passage that Lee has already deemed "natural," then we'll hear it from those who are more "in tune with the ministry."

I remember reading Lee's footnotes on Psalm 34. Lee said it was natural. But when it got to the verse, "Not one of his bones will be broken," suddenly Lee declared that this was a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Huh?

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by aron

I remember reading Lee's footnotes on Psalm 34. Lee said it was natural. But when it got to the verse, "Not one of his bones will be broken," suddenly Lee declared that this was a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Huh?

This mindset of Witness Lee is so contradictory to

2 Samuel 22:31
"As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him."

It is startling how far Witness Lee moved away from God's word. Once you undermine its integrity you lose trust in God and his promises as a refuge of safety. Instead Lee seems to have compelled his followers to trust and take refuge in a false shepherd and his words.

It also reveals a total lack of fear of God.

Isaiah led an obedient life of repentance and yet was undone before the throne of God in Isaiah 6. I would never in a million years want to trade places with Witness Lee knowing he openly defied God's word and declared portions of it to be 'natural', not even taking into account the reports of undealt with iniquity in his ministry. Can you imagine what a scene it would be if Witness Lee took Isaiah's place in Isaiah 6? Another reminder to be humble towards God for those in the LCs as well as ourselves.

[Jesus4Me]

Originally Posted by aron

I kind of wanted to create a contrast on this thread. First is a continuation of bearbear's idea of a "supernatural worldview" and "works of power of the Holy Spirit." Second is to contrast that with what we typically do, which is inject our own soulish reaction to the world we see, including imposing our cultural and personal agendas upon the Bible we read. Nee talked about this, as did Lee, but somehow they thought they were immune from this. Somehow God had given them a special dispensation. "Witness Lee: even when he's wrong he's right", we would say. I remember current Blended, RK, saying of Lee, that "No self" was involved in his ministry. I think this is actually the most pernicious self, because it has convinced us that it doesn't exist: it's fully concealed and thus free to wreak its havoc. Was there no self when Lee established the Daystar Motor Home company with son Timothy at the helm, then began to shake down the parishoners from his pulpit? No self involved when he appointed his son Philip to run LSM? Actually we took a lot from a fellow human and treated it as if it were from God. We created a "God who died", when the truth came out and the foundation of our spiritual worldview was revealed as made of sand. Lee's feet were made of clay, just like you and me. Surprise, surprise. So he tried to expose the Shanghai elders: "How did you feel" when the truth came out, but he really exposed his whole system.

The fact is that we are human, and we respond imperfectly to the perfect God. And that includes Mssrs Nee & Lee, the current Blendeds in Anaheim, and the rest of us.

1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

Romans 12:3For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

1 Corinthians 11:3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

I would have to say that as much as Paul would exhort believers to be followers of him, he was referring to the example set by Him of having Christ as his head; thus submitting to His words as His disciples; rather than for his followers to be known as disciples of Paul.

So I would like to revisit my earlier discussion, of the "open heavens" in John 1:51, the "servants under me" as related by the Roman centurion in Luke 7, and the scene in front of the throne in Revelations 1 through 3.

Now, why did I pick these three sets of scripture as my portals to the supernatural world? Admittedly they are arbitrary. Someone else might have picked 3 entirely different passages. So I admit my subjectivity here. John 1:51 is interesting to me because it's at the end of the clearly introductory first chapter of John's gospel. Immediately after this the "signs" begin, with the wedding feast at Cana, Galilee in John chapter 2. So this verse, 1:51, stands as a kind of coda to the introduction, and arguably it opens the works of power that follow. If you want to know where Nathaniel saw heavens open, and angels of God ascending and descending, you might start with the miracle of water turning into wine in John Chapter 2. And so forth.

But my raising this verse was mainly to show how Lee with his own agenda moved the conversation away from the actual verse at hand, and on to his underlying motive. Jesus didn't talk in John 1:51 about the church. But because Jacob had commented about the place of his dream in Genesis 28, "Surely this is the gate of heaven; this is the house of God", then Lee turned the attention away from angels ascending and descending, to the Church of Nee and Lee. Nifty move, huh? Likewise, when Jacob poured the oil on the rock, Lee said that was the outpoured Holy Spirit. But the Genesis 28 passage doesn't mention the Holy Spirit, nor does Jesus in John 1:51; is the outpoured Spirit the same as angels ascending and descending upon the heavenly ladder? Or something different? No comment from Lee. "Much traffic" is all we get to acknowledge the actual text.

So the contents of the verse get re-directed to what is profitable for Lee to cover. And the same goes for the information given by the Roman Centurion in Luke 7. No mention of "I have servants under me, and I tell this one..." We instead focus on the next verse: "You just say the word and my servant will be healed"; as if that were all the germane information in this passage. But the Roman shared in detail of the background of the working, and Jesus marveled, and the writer Luke conveyed the information. Why ignore it? Perhaps because it's not central to your "God's economy" or "normal church life" schema.

When someone gets exalted to such a position that he is treated as the "Head" and coming to him instead of the actual Head, is how believers are victimized by covetous self serving believers.

Look at Paul in how he had an abundant of revelations and such that God had to give him a thorn in the flesh so that no one would exalt him higher than they ought to; and in spite of scholars today, it was not his failing eyesight. That would not stop any one from thinking too highly of Paul at all, but hearing voice of the devil accusing him; that would make people think twice about exalting him because they would view him as having a mental illness or something.

2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Seems to me that Nee & Lee were exalted beyond measure as that should have been a telltale sign that God was not using them to serve Him in seeking the glory of the Son by testifying of Him. No. Somehow, by certain claims they have made, directly or indirectly, they began sharing in the spotlight and soon, they became the spotlight in gathering their disciples as it seems to be the case by what I am reading here at this forum.

Lastly, the fall of the angels in Genesis 6 doesn't get much coverage. Think of this: the Bible arguably shows us three falls: Lucifer/Satan in Ezekiel 14/Isaiah 28, the fall of the human race in Genesis 3, and the fall of the angels in Genesis 6 (which is subsequent to, and entirely tied up with, the fallen human race [!!] ). So Jesus shows up and constantly is portrayed as doing battle with fallen spirits who usurp humankind, and oppress them, and this evil spirits/demons connection to Genesis 6 is clearly established in supporting non-canonical literature, and is even referenced in places like Jude verse 6, and yet it is not "central to the divine economy" of Lee so it is ignored. As BP liked to say "We don't care for that".

I am not saying we should become demon fighters and miracle workers. I am saying that we ignore the text because it doesn't prop up our world view. We create a "supernatural worldview" based on whatever texts are convenient, and ignore the rest. And Lee pretended that he focused on the "pure word", as if his approach was equal in purity to the scriptural text itself. News flash: it wasn't. Nor is mine, or yours, which is why we have discussions. A tad of humility is in order here.

And mayhap more than just humility. We are to submit to the Word of God ( Jesus Christ ) as He is the Head over every believer. With our eyes on the Bridegroom, Whom is within us and thus with us always, we need no man teacher to have the final word on any matter when His will do.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

Incidentally, the use of Genesis 6th as referring to fallen angels is not of the truth. I can understand how false teachings can come in and corrupt the plain reading of it, but God did not judge the world because of mixed hybrids coming out of fallen angels and daughters of men; it was because of every thought & intent of their hearts was wickedness.

Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them......

And that was what God had destroyed; it did not mentioned the fallen angels at all that supposedly was read into the texts as reproducing hybrids.

So who were the sons of God? The descendents of Seth that had replaced Abel from whom Israel is the family tree springing from. Israel were considered as the sons of God as well. It was by marrying outside the line of Seth's family line that the godly followers were reproducing giants & men of renown in the earth, but they were still just men.

Scripture can confirm this again after the flood as to the real reason why the flood had happened:

Genesis 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Indeed, as Israel are of the line of Seth, as the former sons of God of the O.T., this was why Israel was not to marry outside the nation of Israel, but some did and one could see how Goliath may have come about since the scripture did report that it happened again thereafter...

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

I suppose it could be debateable, but Jesus removes all doubts by saying this:

Matthew 22:30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Since we acknowledge that God's marriage is a man & a woman for them to become one flesh and no amount of same sec marriages is going to make oit a marriage in God's eye, then surely, He will not join fallen angels to be one with the daughters of men for these women to be called "wives" to them in the scripture. That would be a lie in His words then.

Matthew 19: 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So in no way would God join any fallen angels with women to be called wives to them in His words. The sons of God of the O.T. were descendents of Seth from which Israel came from by way of Noah.

In the N.T., now believers in Jesus Christ are the sons of God.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jesus4Me

Incidentally, the use of Genesis 6th as referring to fallen angels is not of the truth. I can understand how false teachings can come in and corrupt the plain reading of it, but God did not judge the world because of mixed hybrids coming out of fallen angels and daughters of men; it was because of every thought & intent of their hearts was wickedness.

...
And that was what God had destroyed; it did not mentioned the fallen angels at all that supposedly was read into the texts as reproducing hybrids.

So who were the sons of God? The descendents of Seth that had replaced Abel from whom Israel is the family tree springing from. Israel were considered as the sons of God as well. It was by marrying outside the line of Seth's family line that the godly followers were reproducing giants & men of renown in the earth, but they were still just men..

Okay, granting all your points (I think), it still says that "God didn't spare angels who sinned, and left their allotted posts (as servants)..." So deny Genesis 6 as pertaining to angels, but the point remains. Satan fell, humankind fell, and "one third of the stars" also fell. You can put the pieces to gether however you want. They are still there.

We are all under God's authority. Obedience is paramount. Doesn't matter if you are Gabriel, who stands before God's throne (Luke 1:19, cf Rev 8:2), or if you are "little nobody". Everyone's place is allotted. Serve God in trembling and fear. It is not about angels (or anything else). The moral of the story is obedience.

Jesus is the true obedient Son. He alone is the Lamb of God, spotless and pure. We the sinners see Him (by faith, and yes revealed by the Holy Ghost) and live. It is about obedience - Jesus' obedience. Even to death He was obedient.