Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

(First, there are over 600 words in this one. Oh well.)

I know that heaven is not the topic of the thread, but at some level, the whole idea of being an overcomer in the context of Lee's theology is put up against the more trite aspects of popular theology.

I am not so sure it is trite. Yes, overused, but perhaps not of little importance. There are many people who think they understand the Christian gospel is all about believing so you can go to heaven. I think such a concept can be used to keep people from Christ and from the truth.

I would much prefer people boiling down the gospel to something like "I am forgiven". I can see that resulting in people coming to the Lord, repenting and believing. Besides "they overcame by the blood of the lamb". So even such a simple concept does contribute to people not only receiving Christ but also overcoming.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I would much prefer people boiling down the gospel to something like "I am forgiven". I can see that resulting in people coming to the Lord, repenting and believing. Besides "they overcame by the blood of the lamb". So even such a simple concept does contribute to people not only receiving Christ but also overcoming.

There may have been times in which the idea of going to a better place was enticing. But in a day and age (and environment) in which so many have so much, the enticement of a better place is just not enough to turn them from such tangible, right-now things like Mercedes and condos, or even X-box and iPads.

So, in today's terms, I agree that forgiveness stands out as a much more meaningful aspect of the gospel. And, as far as the outreach side of the gospel is concerned, it should always be (and have been) the predominant part of the gospel. Too much emphasis on what you get out of it that is like "heaven" tends to attract shallow followers. Followers who are not really following, but would like to think they are. Those who recognize their frailty and unrighteousness also recognize that they need forgiveness.

The message of changed lives is the crux of the matter. I don't know about heaven. But the lame walk and the blind are seeing. The miser has opened his heart and loosened the grip on "his" pocketbook. Justice is served on a regular basis. In fact, all are serving each other and even the outsider. Balances in the marketplace are honest (honest weight, no springs). The drunk has found the way to be free of the bottle.

And on it goes.

But while I do agree at some level that so much focus on heaven is relatively trite, it is only so when it is usurping your place and part in the changing of lives, both "your" own and of others. When active participation in this life is relinquished and everything is pining for something somewhere else. There is a place for "Oh I want to see his face." But if that's all we ever do, might we find that we were busy pining about that and missed when He came to us now as an out-of-luck guy on the street and we simply told him to be warm and fed. Or worse, just acted like he wasn't there.

It's interesting that Peter and Paul, while not emphasizing heaven, definitely emphasized the resurrection of the dead (not just of Christ, but of the believers). That is, they did speak about what will happen after we die. Their gospel included that we would have a heavenly, spiritual body.

[aron]

It's interesting that Peter and Paul, while not emphasizing heaven, definitely emphasized the resurrection of the dead (not just of Christ, but of the believers). That is, they did speak about what will happen after we die. Their gospel included that we would have a heavenly, spiritual body.

As I mentioned in post #98, Jesus arguably did emphasize heaven. Our Father is in heaven. The parables repeatedly portray the kingdom of heaven. Our heart should be in heaven. Our reward is in heaven. Etc.

Now I would like to shift the terminology, but hopefully not the focus, to the word "resurrection". Luke 14 12 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

In the resurrection, the righteous overcomers will be repaid for giving to those who do not have the means to repay them in this age. Their orientation, I argue, is not to get a "return" on investment on earth; but rather thier investment is waiting for them in heaven. Thus thier heart is seeking a secret kingdom, one that remains (Heb 12:25-29).

As I said, I believe orientation has 3 effects (of course there may be more, but these came to me): attention, interest, and effort. So if our orientation is toward the earth, we won't waste scarce earthly resources (time, attention, effort) if we don't get an immediate payoff.

Now, I want, in this light to consider the widows, the orphans, and the poor. In Exodus, Deuteronomy, Psalms and Proverbs, in Job, Jeremiah and Isaiah (to name a few), we see repeated admonitions to care for the less fortunate ones. So Jesus' admonition in Luke 14 has a clear background in God's Word. Now, according to our selfish, immediate needs, this orientation will produce a loss. But if we are "heavenly oriented" then we will see the prudence of this investment. We will gladly "lose something" in this age in order to "win something" in the resurrection of the righteous.

Now, I would like to contrast this with what I see as an "earthly" orientation: that of the LSM teachings and practices regarding "the ministry", "the churches", and "the building up of the body", and so forth. But in the interests of brevity (ha-ha-ha) I will do so in another post.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

As I mentioned in post #98, Jesus arguably did emphasize heaven. Our Father is in heaven. The parables repeatedly portray the kingdom of heaven. Our heart should be in heaven. Our reward is in heaven. Etc...

"seek ye first the kingdom of heaven" is aligned with the orientation of the gospel, because it is active, it involves seeking.

"Are you going to heaven or hell" is not. It encourages passivity and pride.

"I am going to heaven when I die" is also not aligned because it is too focused on the future and not on the present.

Seek is present tense.
Seek ye first -- is all about priority.
The kingdom of heaven, heaven here is an adjective, not a noun.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

But while I do agree at some level that so much focus on heaven is relatively trite, it is only so when it is usurping your place and part in the changing of lives, both "your" own and of others. When active participation in this life is relinquished and everything is pining for something somewhere else. There is a place for "Oh I want to see his face." But if that's all we ever do, might we find that we were busy ... and missed when He came to us now as an out-of-luck guy on the street and we ...just acted like he wasn't there.

Continuing my discussion from posts #98,99, (ha-ha-ha) I was visiting with the Full-Time Training Anaheim (FTTA) and was in a meeting with a group of "trainees". One of the trainees was telling about how she was visiting an old lady and her grandchildren. Evidently the middle generation were dead or in jail or doing drugs or whatnot. Gone. So there was this old lady with some very young children, who gladly received her. But the trainee was bothered because this seemed to be kind of a dead-end. I remember her saying that the woman wasn't very educated, and they were too busy worrying about "practical issues" to get very much involved in "the church life". So she said, in effect: "I have a promising contact, but..."

The "trainer" was blunt. "Don't waste your time." My hair stood on end. I raised my hand, and then raised Luke 14. The trainer looked at me as if I simply were not there, said nothing in reply, and continued the meeting. "Next question?"

I don't think the trainer "went rogue" in his reply, or ignoring my objection. I think he was fully and succinctly expressing the wishes of those who trained him. The goal of the LSM is to build up the present, earthly system, variously called "the ministry", "the local churches" and "the Recovery". People be damned. If you can't help them, they are not interested in you. They simply won't invest anything in you if they can't get an immediate, physical, "practical" payout.

Like Willard "Mitt" Romney: now that the election is over he probably won't give any more speeches on "America". Now it's back to what really matters, which is Willard "Mitt" Romney. The presidency is no longer a trophy available for his grasp, so he will seek others. They said Romney flip-flopped but he was remarkably consistent in trying to build up the Kingdom of Romney.

(And believe me, I am not a huge fan of Democrats from Illinois either [hint-hint]. This morning the news told me of a certain Democratic Congressman from Chicago who's been on leave of absence, "seeking medical treatment" because of "nervous anxiety" over the various scandals plaguing him. Today I found out that he coasted to an easy re-election. As they say up there: Vote early, vote often!)

Point is: if you stick around, people eventually reveal their true orientation, of what sort it is. In retrospect, I saw something of the real LSM orientation that day, all the talk of "New Jerusalem", "paradise", and "overcomers" notwithstanding. And for that view, I am grateful. It was not as visceral as awareness' experience: GET OUT!! GET OUT!! But that vista 'behind the veil' was ultimately as instructive to me as it was to him.

Originally Posted by aron

The "trainer" was blunt. "Don't waste your time." My hair stood on end. I raised my hand, and then raised Luke 14. The trainer looked at me as if I simply were not there, said nothing in reply, and continued the meeting. "Next question?"

I experienced the same thing in my locality. At college I was spending a lot of time with a Christian who was struggling with an addiction and a mental disorder. He was a really sweet brother, but he just had very deep personal issues. I would visit him in his dorm, invite him over to the brother's house (where I lived), and just spend time with him. And he was improving. His life seemed to be turning around (not just because of me, but I do think I was having a positive influence on him).

I was strongly rebuked by an elder/full-timer that I was spending too much time with this brother, and I should focus whatever "serving" time I had on better material. I took that admonition seriously, and stopped making an effort to spend time with this young brother. (At the time I bought into the church's authority/submission complex. If an older brother, especially an elder, tells you something against your conscience, then you need to "take it from the Lord.")

Eventually that young brother gave into his addiction, and dropped out of school. I have no idea what became of him. But I still regret letting our friendship go, just because I wanted to make an elder happy. The Lord spent so much time with the lost and helpless and rejected. But I was made to feel guilty for spending just a little time with a brother who needed people to care.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

II was strongly rebuked by an elder/full-timer that I was spending too much time with this brother, and I should focus whatever "serving" time I had on better material.

This orientation on "better material" is a dead-giveaway, in retrospect, of the nature of this organization. All the high peak truths, however assiduously presented, cannot disguise this simple fact.

Contrast that to, besides the Luke 14 parable: Jesus' speaking to Zaccheus in Luke 19:9,10, on giving half of his wealth to the poor; Jesus' advice to the young man who wanted perfection to "Sell what you have, give to the poor, and come after Me"; and Paul's word in Galatians 2:10 on being eager to remember the poor.

We have myriad opportunities to remember "these, the least of My brothers". Every day when you leave your house you will find them. I have come to feel that more than money and an ear for their sob story, the downtrodden ones want someone to pay attention, to show them that God is paying attention to them, that they matter to Him as much as everyone else. And it's true. They do matter to God. The Bible clearly, repeatedly shows this. It is unmistakeable, to me.

'Paradise' and 'heaven' and the 'Wedding Feast' I'm still sorting out. But taking care of the fallen ones all around us is pretty clear. And I'm also pretty clear that Witness Lee never got this simple idea. Evidently he was just too busy with his theology, and the organization his theology oriented him towards. And he arguably "received his reward in full" (cf Matt. 6:2b).

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I experienced the same thing in my locality. At college I was spending a lot of time with a Christian who was struggling with an addiction and a mental disorder. He was a really sweet brother, but he just had very deep personal issues. I would visit him in his dorm, invite him over to the brother's house (where I lived), and just spend time with him. And he was improving. His life seemed to be turning around (not just because of me, but I do think I was having a positive influence on him).

I was strongly rebuked by an elder/full-timer that I was spending too much time with this brother, and I should focus whatever "serving" time I had on better material. I took that admonition seriously, and stopped making an effort to spend time with this young brother. (At the time I bought into the church's authority/submission complex. If an older brother, especially an elder, tells you something against your conscience, then you need to "take it from the Lord.")

Eventually that young brother gave into his addiction, and dropped out of school. I have no idea what became of him. But I still regret letting our friendship go, just because I wanted to make an elder happy. The Lord spent so much time with the lost and helpless and rejected. But I was made to feel guilty for spending just a little time with a brother who needed people to care.

Unfortunately this is the modus operandi. Focus on helping those who can contribute positively to the movement while everyone else is a waste of time.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Unfortunately this is the modus operandi. Focus on helping those who can contribute positively to the movement while everyone else is a waste of time.

This is the modus operandi of false brothers. This is why on the other thread I pointed out "you shall know them by their fruit" should also be used as evidence that WL is a false teacher.

[TLFisher]

I hear what you're saying ZNP. While I was meeting in the local churches, it became obvious the agenda about the gospel was who is "good material" for the ministry? Meaning bringing the gospel of Jesus to the unsaved is secondary to adding membership to the local churches.
If you spoke the gospel to someone and they ended up meeting somewhere else, yuur time was wasted because it did not issue in positive results for "the ministry". However what is lost sight of is as Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 3:4-7;

"For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

Unfortunately this is the modus operandi. Focus on helping those who can contribute positively to the movement while everyone else is a waste of time.

As some of you may now Indiana has been for five months residing in the southern Philippine island of Mindanao. I've been following his email report regarding interactions with local Christians and Catholics. Recently a blended co-worker responded not wanting to be included in the email correspondence. You may not think anything fo it, but considering this co-worker goes to the same island twice a year for at least the last five years, it only reinforces the quoted post.
If spreading the gospel or even fellowship among believers does not come from nor directly contributes to LSM-oriented fellowship, there is no ear to hear.

[ZNPaaneah]

Does the LRC have a mixed agenda in the gospel? Is at least one stated goal of the gospel they preach to "spread the ministry"?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

Continuing my discussion from posts #98,99, (ha-ha-ha) I was visiting with the Full-Time Training Anaheim (FTTA) and was in a meeting with a group of "trainees". One of the trainees was telling about how she was visiting an old lady and her grandchildren. Evidently the middle generation were dead or in jail or doing drugs or whatnot. Gone. So there was this old lady with some very young children, who gladly received her. But the trainee was bothered because this seemed to be kind of a dead-end. I remember her saying that the woman wasn't very educated, and they were too busy worrying about "practical issues" to get very much involved in "the church life". So she said, in effect: "I have a promising contact, but..."

The "trainer" was blunt. "Don't waste your time." My hair stood on end. I raised my hand, and then raised Luke 14. The trainer looked at me as if I simply were not there, said nothing in reply, and continued the meeting. "Next question?"

This person is not qualified to preach the gospel, much less train others. I saw this a lot, many of the people who have positions of authority in the LRC have no experience in the gospel. Despicable.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Like Willard "Mitt" Romney: now that the election is over he probably won't give any more speeches on "America". Now it's back to what really matters, which is Willard "Mitt" Romney. The presidency is no longer a trophy available for his grasp, so he will seek others. They said Romney flip-flopped but he was remarkably consistent in trying to build up the Kingdom of Romney.

Was this really necessary? I woke up with a headache.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Was [the Romney diatribe] really necessary? I woke up with a headache.

No, it was probably a gratuitous swipe on my part. I've gotten so tired of the politicians' speeches that I just wanted to metaphorically whack one of them on his way out the door. Too bad we couldn't do it with all of them. "Until He returns..."

Sorry for the collateral damage.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Point is: if you stick around, people eventually reveal their true orientation, of what sort it is. In retrospect, I saw something of the real LSM orientation that day . . .

I've been out of the LC for a long time. And over the decades I've checked in on the LC, to see if things have changed.

And yes, things have changed. Lee died, and the Blended Bros were born. Yet one thing that hasn't changed is their orientation. They might try to hide it, but it remains. Their orientation is never gonna change ... unless everyone leaves the LC. And that won't happen because some people will believe anything.

[MacDuff]

ZNPaaneah

Mt 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Lu 12:31 But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Not heaven.

Colossians 3:
1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

Paul explains the principle rather well.

Revelations 21:
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Where is it, if it's coming down out of heaven but didn't land on earth? Why mention a new earth, if that wasn't it's destination?

MacDuff

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

ZNPaaneah, Not heaven. Paul explains the principle rather well. Where is it, if it's coming down out of heaven but didn't land on earth? Why mention a new earth, if that wasn't it's destination?

The quote didn't make it when I I quoted your post, but it is a very interesting point. Our life is hid in Christ. Since Christ was going to Paradise from the Cross he told the thief he would see him there. However on the third day Christ ascended to the heavens and now sits by the right hand of God. Therefore the teaching may not be that we go to Paradise when we die but rather we go to where Christ is.

That is strongly supported by Paul's word in Phillippians:

1:20 According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death.
1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
1:22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
1:24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

According to this verse when we die we will "be with Christ". Since Christ is in the heavens then it makes sense we would be too.

However, it still leaves the verse about "the dead in Christ rising first" to be reconciled.

Perhaps the bumper sticker should be "When you die will you be with Christ?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Where is the New Jerusalem, if it's coming down out of heaven but didn't land on earth? Why mention a new earth, if that wasn't it's destination?

The new earth seems to be the destination of the New Jerusalem, but by the same logic, why mention its origin, heaven? Because, um, maybe the New Jerusalem brings heaven down to earth? As in, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"? So, then, if we care about "Thy kingdom come on earth", why don't we likewise care about "as it is in heaven"?

Nope, says the LC apologist. We don't care for that. Because Witness Lee didn't care for that. So neither do we.

WL was so keen to distinguish himself and his ministry from the rest of Christianity that he even separated himself and his ministry from the Bible. WL and the LC were so zealous to reject any orientation toward heaven as merely of darkened Christianity that they ended up ignoring the actual Bible, when it showed an orientation toward heaven. WL provided the LC with an alternative interpretational scheme, which included both implicit and explicit criticisms of Christian thought, and once that was set on the Bible, the LC could freely ignore the text. So how things should be "as in heaven" meant nothing, and the NJ descending "down from heaven" meant nothing. That didn't fit the scheme, so it didn't exist.

Next time you talk to an LC'er, bring up a verse that isn't trumpeted in the LSM hermeneutic. You'll either get a blank stare, and silence, or they'll get uncomfortable and will redirect the conversation to one of "their" verses.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Next time you talk to an LC'er, bring up a verse that isn't trumpeted in the LSM hermeneutic. You'll either get a blank stare, and silence, or they'll get uncomfortable and will redirect the conversation to one of "their" verses.

Or they might ask how does the verse fit into God's Economy?