Good Lee/Bad Lee: Can They Be Separated?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Here is a classic example from the last chapter of Lee's book A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing (1990 ISBN: 978-0-87083-562-9). First is a paragraph of what I would call "good Lee," an enlightening insight into two aspects of our relationship with God. Lee, with his accountant's mind, was good at this kind of comparison and contrast:

"The Father is both our God and our Father. His being our Father means that we are born of Him. His being our God means that we were created by Him. If we were only created by God but not begotten of Him, we are not in the church. By being born of God we enter into a life relationship and an organic union with Him. First, God created us, and then He begot us. Since we are created by God and born of God, our relationship with Him is twofold. First, we are God’s creatures, and He is our Creator. Then, we are God’s children, and He is our Father. If there were no children of God, there would be no church. We in the church have been both created by God and born of God. Thus, we are created as proper human beings and born as children of God. This is the church."

I'll stop there.

I will agree that this could be good. But let me suggest why even this "good Lee" may be off-the-mark.

When he says "If we were only created by God but not begotten of Him, we are not in the church" I think he has said something that may or may not actually be true, but based on the revelation available, cannot be asserted in such a manner.

Why? Because there are many aspects of the church. And there is the notion of being begotten. But it is not simply any one thing that is the reason we are the church or that without that aspect in the way Lee taught it there would be no church.

What is the church? It is many things. The gathering, assembly of believers. It is the body of Christ. It is many things. But nowhere is it stated that being "begotten of God" is a requirement for being in the church. Unless we are going to note that those that are truly what evangelicals commonly called "saved" are, by definition, begotten of God.

Now, as someone has pointed out, Lee does not entirely ignore the basic process of salvation. But do we think that when he says "begotten of God" here, he simply means anyone who is simply saved?

And I think that the answer is in the rest of his speaking/writing. If the church is "a group of people who are in union with the Triune God and are mingled with the Triune God" then we have to know what it is that he says is "in union with" and "mingled with" the Triune God. And there is much more than "begetting" (in the sense of salvation) in Lee's version of "union" and "mingled." It takes much more.

It takes being "practically" joined with a certain kind of outward church. You can't just argue that we are the church. You are only really the church if you are practically meeting on the ground of locality. And so many additional requirements. Like accepting the teachings coming from the LSM. Agreeing wholeheartedly with every teaching in that great body of work. Establishing a standing order for a preset amount of regularly-generated new materials.

Yes. Begetting sounds so good. But even if he only means "saved" when he says it, he has then withheld materially important information about what else you need to be "in the church." It is a little like accepting that some religious nut (any type) says that the USA is correctly a country in the northern half of the Western Hemisphere, but then goes on to claim that it is illegitimate because it is not entirely following the OT law of God, or Sharia (sp?) law. Yes, the first part is correct. But they want to add provisos according to their own imagination as to what is truly correct.

So, unless you are going to read Lee like fortune cookies and be sure to only read the good ones (and never even get a hint of the caveats, exceptions, provisos, quid pro quos in other of his cookies) then you are best off to avoid even the supposedly good cookies. Once you read a bad one (and don't know it) how do you separate the good from the bad when you discover that you've been reading (and eating) a mixture of good and bad cookies?

[OBW]

Cassidy,

You are correct that it is entirely everyone's personal right to take all, most, some, little, or none of Lee. But the concern is that if there truly are problems intertwined in the good, then are we to presume that those who see (or think they see) it simply keep quiet?

I'm not suggesting that you do or don't see it. Or that you do or don't agree. I'm not talking about you. Just the discussion about having this discussion.

But just as those who want to take it all have the right to take everything Lee said without a second thought, do others who think there is a legitimate reason to be concerned about that have no right to speak out?

It is almost the worst kind of postmodern "it's right for me" approach to claim that everyone can think what they want, but they should simply keep it to themselves — except for me because mine is not only right for me, but for you too.

I know that it is possible to assert that I/we are just doing that when we speak out against Lee. But we don't start with the presumption that we are simply right and only those who agree should speak. We think that there are legitimate cases to be made from scripture, so we make them. If someone can make the counter argument successfully, then we have reason to reconsider. Most of us got here by doing exactly that. We began to take in legitimate spiritual/scriptural data not pre/re-arranged by Nee, Lee, and the BBs/LSM and determined that the direct sources did not always agree with Lee. For some of us, we concluded that there was good reason to even get our good teachings somewhere else.

My take is that there is too much of a "package deal" in Lee's teachings to presume that hardly anyone will not either accept it all (at some level) or reject him altogether. He makes each piece fit with the next piece that ultimately brings the whole dispensing, ground, MOTA, Spiritual Authority thing to bear.

It is very difficult to cherry-pick Lee. It's not obviously good and bad fruit hanging in open view on a tree. It is a grey mixture of things mixed together in a lump of dough, a pot of thrice-reheated lentil soup, or stew. I will show my true colors and conclude that if you can find a clean, isolated, good teaching (meaning that two paragraphs later it is not altered beyond recognition) it is like an effort in dumpster diving. A needle in a haystack. It is so seldom that neatly separated from the junk and therefore even the good becomes questionable once the message is over.

When I read people that generate that kind of junk, I do it for something much less important that my primary theology and doctrines. It might be like taking the IRS position on something (contrary to what you think is correct) just to be sure that you have thought of everything. That is the highest place I give Lee. A source of alternate thought to at least consider rather than simply rejecting without a thought. Like Lee says to do with his teachings — accept them without a critical thought.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Personally, I like threads like this because it seems to follow the thought of Paul's admonishment in Hebrews 5.14, but these forums seem to have little tolerance for this strain of thought, as was again evidenced with the recent debate and subsequent departure of ZNP. Perhaps with all of Igzy's vast linguistic skills, he can succeed where others have failed.

Not to take this thread off track (God forbid), but Ohio could you please tell us how ZNP’s thread could be compared to this thread. How was “the strain of thought” in ZNP’s thread anything close to what we see here? ZNP all but admitted it was a kind of litmus test to see if some of us would see the error of our ways in “judging Witness Lee’s person” and “speaking evil of a brother”. When pressed to tell us what he meant or give concrete examples he passed on the chance by throwing out red herrings or putting forth arguments that were largely disconnected from the matter at hand. When pressed further he simply chose to withdraw. The bottom line is that ZNP, bless his heart, feels that the criticisms of Witness Lee are too harsh here on the Forum. This is all well and good. His voice is a good as anybody else’s. But the thread he started was not a genuine attempt at mutual discussions, but rather a not-so-veiled attempt to silence them, or at least redirect and/or distract. This is where, as the administrator, I have to step in and “defend” the Forum.

ZNP is a valued member of the forum as far as I’m concerned. I hope we will still hear from him. What he must understand is that what we are doing here has nothing to do with questioning Witness Lee’s salvation or “standing before the Lord”. There are “judgments” that the Lord has reserved for Himself at the Day of Judgment, and I think most of us have been around long enough to know what those are. The Word actually spells these judgments out for us. There are also “judgments” that we believers have been entrusted with, here on earth, here in the age of the church. I think we should be bold and not despise the trust that the Lord has entrusted us with. I am afraid that we abdicated this trust when we were in the Local Church. This was to the detriment of our souls and to the well-being of our families.

Now all this being said, I wholeheartedly agree that Igzy has started a very well thought out thread. Let’s dig in!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Here is a classic example from the last chapter of Lee's book A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing (1990 ISBN: 978-0-87083-562-9). First is a paragraph of what I would call "good Lee," an enlightening insight into two aspects of our relationship with God. Lee, with his accountant's mind, was good at this kind of comparison and contrast:

"The Father is both our God and our Father. His being our Father means that we are born of Him. His being our God means that we were created by Him. If we were only created by God but not begotten of Him, we are not in the church. By being born of God we enter into a life relationship and an organic union with Him. First, God created us, and then He begot us. Since we are created by God and born of God, our relationship with Him is twofold. First, we are God’s creatures, and He is our Creator. Then, we are God’s children, and He is our Father. If there were no children of God, there would be no church. We in the church have been both created by God and born of God. Thus, we are created as proper human beings and born as children of God. This is the church."

Originally Posted by OBW

I will agree that this could be good. But let me suggest why even this "good Lee" may be off-the-mark. When he says "If we were only created by God but not begotten of Him, we are not in the church" I think he has said something that may or may not actually be true, but based on the revelation available, cannot be asserted in such a manner.

Why? Because there are many aspects of the church. And there is the notion of being begotten. But it is not simply any one thing that is the reason we are the church or that without that aspect in the way Lee taught it there would be no church.

This is a distinct example of how one can be so much against WL, that he is willing to alter the basic truths of the Bible in order to reject every statement Lee has ever made.

How can one be part of the church, if not begotten of God? Is that not what tares are -- part of the church, but not born of God? Which aspect of the church includes the un-regenerated?

These are the kind of basic frustrations that ex-members face when visiting this forum. Many Bible teachers, apart from WL, have made similar statements as that which Igzy has quoted above. I certainly have no problem with it. If OBW's pastor had said it, he would have received it without hesitation.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a distinct example of how one can be so much against WL, that he is willing to alter the basic truths of the Bible in order to reject every statement Lee has ever made.

How can one be part of the church, if not begotten of God? Is that not what tares are -- part of the church, but not born of God? Which aspect of the church includes the un-regenerated?

These are the kind of basic frustrations that ex-members face when visiting this forum. Many Bible teachers, apart from WL, have made similar statements as that which Igzy has quoted above. I certainly have no problem with it. If OBW's pastor had said it, he would have received it without hesitation.

Actually how I read OBW's comment is that there is more to being the church then being begotten. And I would further suggest that "being begotten" needs finer definition. Does knocking on a door, reading the Mystery of Human Life to someone, having them say a canned prayer and baptizing them in their bath tub = they are begotten? Is that the magic formula?

But setting this aside if Witness Lee were honest he would say: if you are not in an LSM based church you are not part of the church because this is what he believed and practiced and passed on to the Blendeds. Thus the idea that they speak for "the Body" when quarantining Titus Chu, etc. regardless of what the Church in Cleveland says about it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a distinct example of how one can be so much against WL, that he is willing to alter the basic truths of the Bible in order to reject every statement Lee has ever made.

How can one be part of the church, if not begotten of God? Is that not what tares are -- part of the church, but not born of God? Which aspect of the church includes the un-regenerated?

These are the kind of basic frustrations that ex-members face when visiting this forum. Many Bible teachers, apart from WL, have made similar statements as that which Igzy has quoted above. I certainly have no problem with it. If OBW's pastor had said it, he would have received it without hesitation.

I tend to agree with Ohio. The first section of Lee's about God being God and Father is pretty innocuous. To say we need to be born again to be in the Church does not imply that we don't also need to be chosen, called-out, redeemed, sanctified, and everything else being brought into the Church implies. "Born again" plainly implies all that as well in Lee's theology.

Lee is clearly making the distinction between just being a creation and being a new creation. You cannot be a member of the Church spiritually without being a new creation, which means being born again. And you can't be born again without be chosen, called-out, redeemed, etc, etc. God can be your God if you are not born again, but he can't be your Father unless you are born again.

As with children, it's best to pick your battles. Don't make everything a fight or you might end up losing the war.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I tend to agree with Ohio. The first section of Lee's about God being God and Father is pretty innocuous. To say we need to be born again to be in the Church does not imply that we don't also need to be chosen, called-out, redeemed, sanctified, and everything else being brought into the Church implies. "Born again" plainly implies all that as well in Lee's theology.

As with children, it's best to pick your battles. Don't make everything a fight or you might end up losing the war.

Leaving aside the analogy to "fighting battles and winning wars," are we not attempting to positively affect those in the LC's? How can LC members hear our many legitimate concerns, when we also undermine what they rightfully hold dear? Must we not limit our "concerns" to those instances where LSM ventures beyond the boundaries of scripture? Are not we also compelled by scripture to afford our LC brethren every liberty within the limits of the Bible?

I am convinced that if we do not actively chart this course of action, then all the LC members we face will only fortify their strongholds. That's exactly what I did.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a distinct example of how one can be so much against WL, that he is willing to alter the basic truths of the Bible in order to reject every statement Lee has ever made.

How can one be part of the church, if not begotten of God? Is that not what tares are -- part of the church, but not born of God? Which aspect of the church includes the un-regenerated?

These are the kind of basic frustrations that ex-members face when visiting this forum. Many Bible teachers, apart from WL, have made similar statements as that which Igzy has quoted above. I certainly have no problem with it. If OBW's pastor had said it, he would have received it without hesitation.

There you go again.

I would suggest that you did not read all of my post and understand it in full, but instead took a single "cookie" of the text and made it into something that stood alone. If all I had wanted to say was that you didn't have to be begotten of God (in the sense of salvation) to be in the church, I would have stopped after that opening point.

But further on I admitted that if all Lee meant was to say that you have to be saved to be in the church, then that was good. But if that was the case, then you wouldn't find that garbage only two paragraphs later. And if I were trying to find the good in Lee, I wouldn't need to go to the last chapter of some book, and read only one paragraph and stop reading. I wouldn't need to be careful that the importance of being begotten was to be essentially cast aside and an overlay of becoming part of the Trinity (the Quadrinity?) made to be the important thing about the church.

Do you think that Christianity is considered to be part of that Quadrinity in the understanding of the majority of the LRC faithful as the result of hearing or reading that particular portion? Since virtually nothing of Lee is ever just written, but first spoken, do you think that those that heard that message went away impressed by the fact that since they are begotten of God, they are in the church? I really don't think so. Just as Lee probably said that one sentence because he knew he had to, then spent the rest of the time talking about other things, the popcorn testimonies afterward, along with the talk at the dinner table the next day, was probably about being part of the Quadrinity.

My point was that the only truly sound thing in his statement was a warm-up for the second act. He didn't write the chapter to tell us that we needed to be begotten of God to be in the church. He said we need to be begotten of God to slide the obviously correct in ahead of the questionable so they could go down together. Like the little pill pockets we put medicine in for our 15-year-old Chihuahua so he won't try to spit it out.

And if the "medicine" was really good for us, then that might be fine. (I'm still not sure that tricking anyone into believing even something true is a good thing.) But we are not talking about medicine. We are talking about putting a bunch of some non-nutritive, inorganic substance into just enough food that you will take it, then become convinced that the non-nutritive portion is the most important part.

Once you do that, then your very correct statement about needing to be begotten of God becomes almost irrelevant. So if you had read the whole thing as a package, you might have realized that I did not intend to suggest that Lee's one good statement, if taken alone, might not actually be good. Rather that it was part of a larger context in which its correctness became secondary to the garbage that it was being asked to support and convey.

As for what I think about the ones who teach at my church, including the senior pastor, I can assure you that I take exception to things they say all the time. I can give a specific example from the most recent sermon. My wife and I both considered it to be a very incorrect interpretation of scripture. But it did not teach anyone to feel superior, or to ignore righteousness.

The spiritual and moral significance of the things I take exception to from my current sources are in a completely different league from what I keep seeing here and recalling from my days in the LRC. I never heard all of Lee's teachings. I never read all of his books, even when there weren't as many. But the things that stand out in my mind from the time that I heard or read any of it back in the 70s and 80s are not the things that I want to be holding onto today. I don't recall much of the simple gospel, but rather the uber-wows of being God's chosen ones standing in for the majority of poor,poor Christianity that was all going to spend 1,000 years in a little dark closet.

Please read my posts as a unit, not like verses of scripture, all broken into discreet snippets to be understood alone. I do not say that the snippet Lee said was wrong. I say that contextually its correctness was misused and even lost in a sea of incorrectness. It becomes a lost ingredient in warmed over lentil soup.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

There you go again.

My point was that the only truly sound thing in his statement was a warm-up for the second act. He didn't write the chapter to tell us that we needed to be begotten of God to be in the church. He said we need to be begotten of God to slide the obviously correct in ahead of the questionable so they could go down together. Like the little pill pockets we put medicine in for our 15-year-old Chihuahua so he won't try to spit it out.

Well, now you are ascribing motive. And whether you are right or not doesn't change the fact that Lee mixed the good with the bad, which was my point and I think we can agree on that common denominator.

Why he did it is another matter. I'm sure he thought everything he said was true. He likely didn't say to himself "I'm going to speak this orthodox thing so that I can catch them off guard with the junk." Although that was the net effect whether he intended it or not.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, now you are ascribing motive. And whether you are right or not doesn't change the fact that Lee mixed the good with the bad, which was my point and I think we can agree on that common denominator.

Why he did it is another matter. I'm sure he thought everything he said was true. He likely didn't say to himself "I'm going to speak this orthodox thing so that I can catch them off guard with the junk." Although that was the net effect whether he intended it or not.

You could say that I was ascribing motive. It may not have been his motive. But it is essentially what happens over and over in his messages, books, etc. Nee did the same thing some times. Make a bunch of very simple, obviously true statements and then make just one more that is not so simple or necessarily true. Neither may have intended to do it as a trick. But it works as one. Once you are on the bandwagon of shouting "Amen!" to every one of them, it doesn't phase you to say "Amen!" to that last one even though you might not have done it if you had taken the time to think about it.

And even if it is soundly arguable that Lee did not intend to use the comment about begetting to butter us up for the 4-in-1 talk, it really is not hardly relevant to the meat of the chapter. The chapter appears to be about a "church" whose definition is not the same as what I understand it to be. Yes, you need "begetting" to get into either. But in Lee's, you really need much more. Begetting just turns on your GPS. You've got to travel some distance, watch out for some pot holes, and say the right phrase at the little window in the door when you arrive to really be "in the church" according to Lee. That "truth" in the early paragraph is lost in a sea of nonsense. Where is the value of truth when you have to dodge so much to find it? Even if Lee's motives were truly pure, the teachings were not.

And the result is the same.