Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And in only 378 words! I am indeed impressed.

It's not going to work. I will write as I write. Sometimes in fewer words than in others. Words happen!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

It's not going to work. I will write as I write. Sometimes in fewer words than in others. Words happen!

Suit yourself. But if you want to actually be read, write shorter. Trust me on that one. I know what I'm talking about.

[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 recall a song — really just a chorus, don't know if there was anything but these four lines:

Heaven is a wonderful place
Filled with glory and grace
Oh I want to see his face
Heaven is a wonderful place

Now it is clear that there is something a little misplaced for most of us when we sing these kinds of songs. Or think in these ways.

Or is there?

Paul acknowledged that just dying and being with Christ was personally preferable. No matter whether you like the simple terminology, that is "going to heaven."

And let's consider the chorus. It is not about streets of gold and mansions. (Yes, there are songs that cover those things. "Mansion Over the Hilltop" has both.) It is about seeing the face of Jesus. It is about the glory and grace that fills it.

But it is not weighty. It is "shallow" theology, so we diss it. (And it is my first reaction as well. Not pointing fingers.)

But even if shallow, it is not simply wrong. There are no verses that directly support the words provided to sing. But it is not just a fairy tale that doesn't contradict other verses. It has a base in truth that can be found in scripture. Tying everything up in a serious theology that needs a verse reference after every statement is overkill.

And Lee tried to do that. He provided verses all over the place. In fact he provided so many that when he finally said the ridiculous thing that was coming, there had been so many verses provided that we too often missed that the most important things were not actually supported.

That is another topic for another thread. But here, there is something to be said for (or really against) parsing through scripture to find nit-picky things like whether heaven is the right word to use for where we go after death but before the rapture, while dismissing the real, practical commands of God through Jesus about this life as we ignore the part where Jesus said "teaching them to obey all that I have commanded."

This is not about any particular posting in this thread. It is about the mentality of "what matters" in the LRC v the rest of Christianity. I may agree (somewhat) that many in Christianity are a little too focused on "heaven," but I would suggest that the LRC simply renamed it and made it virtually the only focus.

But I'm not sure that they understand what little we think we see about the life to come. They have distilled the substance of "overcoming" to better meetings, better teachings, and better terminology. If I presume that overcoming is about this life, then I would be more focused on the practical commands of Christ. Love God and your neighbor. Serve. Obey all that I command. I would see that obedience is precursor to knowing the truth that "sets you free." It is not the other way around. It is about getting this life right, not practicing falling on your face and shouting "Holy, Holy, Holy . . ." If we have properly prepared this life according the best teachings available (and that starts with Jesus, not Paul — no disrespect to Paul, but he is commentary, not the other way around) we will be prepared for that when the time comes (assuming that is really what we will be doing — I am not saying one way or the other).

[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 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