LSM’s Deification Doctrine—Biblical or Blasphemous? Nigel Tomes

[JJ]

Originally Posted by HERn

For me the first step of getting free from WL and the LC was to realize that WL was not the MOTA, an apostle, or even a brother I would want to hang with. I think he was basically a highly intelligent deceptive man that behaved like a crook and swindler at times. The Spirit probably spoke to him just like He speaks to all of us...WL was convinced and was able to convince many strong-willed brothers that he was something special and different. Shame on all the blindeds and elders for propagating this lie that has now become a religious myth believed by those willingly deceived.

Agreed. MOTA concept is a root of evil.

History is filled with many spiritual and godly men who let it go to their head, became Napoleon-like rulers of the Church, and wouldn't let other godly men and scriptures balance them. MOTA concept breeds that.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

Agreed. MOTA concept is a root of evil.

History is filled with many spiritual and godly men who let it go to their head, became Napoleon-like rulers of the Church, and wouldn't let other godly men and scriptures balance them. MOTA concept breeds that.

A theory of mine is that the teachings of a 'MOTA' and deification go hand in hand. Shortly before focusing on the “high peak” (aka deification), WL made the claim to be the ‘MOTA’. John Ingalls’ testimony is as follows:
He referred to the title he has used for the Holy Spirit – "the all-inclusive Spirit of Christ as the consummation of the processed Triune God" – and asked who made such a title. Webster? he asked. Then he answered his own question, "That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit! And if you listen to me, you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me." A little later in his message he said, "Going with God’s oracle, surely there is the deputy authority of God in this oracle. Whoever speaks for God, he surely has certain divine authority. I’m claiming this for Lee!"

So during the late 80’s, WL made it perfectly clear as to how he viewed himself and his own assumed importance. After the dust settled of the so-called 'turmoil', WL had already moved on to the high peak/deification. What is the link between these two prominent events in LC history? One thing is that WL had become more ‘bold’ in making known how he viewed himself. So why is this important? Those like Ron have failed to acknowledge that WL ever made such claims. Consider what Ron has stated:
“Brother Lee could not say it then, but we can say it today;... he was the minister of the age ...”

In other words, LC members live under the assumption that WL's "high peak" was simply the 'consummation' of WL's ministry and that the idea of WL being a ‘MOTA’ was something that all LC members recognized and agreed upon. This is what I think Ron intended to imply in a statement that is both false and disingenuous. Thus, WL’s self-inflated view is an aspect that must be taken into consideration when discussing his subsequent ministry after the late 80's.

Even if WL is to be given the benefit of the doubt, it doesn’t take much critical thought to realize the discrepancy between his own view of himself and others like the apostle Paul who considered his life as worth nothing (Acts 20:24). I’m even reluctant to make that comparison, because WL liked to try to compare himself to Paul.

So getting back to deification, WL’s ministry reflected his own self-inflated view - that us humans must become someone special. Maybe the whole notion might sound compelling to some, but if WL had expected the concept of deification to be taken seriously, then perhaps he could have started by taking Philippians 2 as a pattern. Jesus made himself a man of no reputation. One Bible version has the following heading for Phil chapter 2: Imitating Christ’s Humility. I believe that this is something that many Christians desire to learn how to do. Even the motto WWJD is not a bad standard to live by when you think about it. Isn't it interesting that LCers will mock the whole WWJD thing?

Maybe we will all fall short at imitating Jesus, but that is kinda the point. We only need to have the mind to do so. We are who we are, and we also know what Jesus wouldn't do. Jesus wouldn't declare that he must become famous or get all the credit. There's really not much else to say. LC leaders just choose to ignore it. Why? Because they don't take Jesus as their pattern. Their pattern is "Lee! Lee!" WL wasn't concerned at all with humility as he so brazenly admitted. It's no wonder LCers mock other Christians who take Phil 2:5 to heart.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

So getting back to deification, WL’s ministry reflected his own self-inflated view - that us humans must become someone special. Maybe the whole notion might sound compelling to some, but if WL had expected the concept of deification to be taken seriously, then perhaps he could have started by taking Philippians 2 as a pattern. Jesus made himself a man of no reputation. One Bible version has the following heading for Phil chapter 2: Imitating Christ’s Humility. I believe that this is something that many Christians desire to learn how to do. Even the motto WWJD is not a bad standard to live by when you think about it. Isn't it interesting that LCers will mock the whole WWJD thing?

Maybe we will all fall short at imitating Jesus, but that is kinda the point. We only need to have the mind to do so. We are who we are, and we also know what Jesus wouldn't do. Jesus wouldn't declare that he must become famous or get all the credit. There's really not much else to say. LC leaders just choose to ignore it. Why? Because they don't take Jesus as their pattern. Their pattern is "Lee! Lee!" WL wasn't concerned at all with humility as he so brazenly admitted. It's no wonder LCers mock other Christians who take Phil 2:5 to heart.

In the local churches there's a desire to be unique or have uniqueness. To set aside Lee and his ministry and settle for just Jesus, all uniqueness would be lost. They would be reduced to be being just like all other Christians; just a member of the Body. They cannot have that.
There needs to be uniqueness. Something that makes those meeting in the local churches more distinct that any other Christian fellowship. The deification doctrine helps create that distinction and separates the local churches as being superior in having the high peak teachings.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

A theory of mine is that the teachings of a 'MOTA' and deification go hand in hand. Shortly before focusing on the “high peak” (aka deification), WL made the claim to be the ‘MOTA’. John Ingalls’ testimony is as follows:
He referred to the title he has used for the Holy Spirit – "the all-inclusive Spirit of Christ as the consummation of the processed Triune God" – and asked who made such a title. Webster? he asked. Then he answered his own question, "That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit! And if you listen to me, you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me." A little later in his message he said, "Going with God’s oracle, surely there is the deputy authority of God in this oracle. Whoever speaks for God, he surely has certain divine authority. I’m claiming this for Lee!"

So during the late 80’s, WL made it perfectly clear as to how he viewed himself and his own assumed importance. After the dust settled of the so-called 'turmoil', WL had already moved on to the high peak/deification. What is the link between these two prominent events in LC history? One thing is that WL had become more ‘bold’ in making known how he viewed himself. So why is this important? Those like Ron have failed to acknowledge that WL ever made such claims. Consider what Ron has stated:
“Brother Lee could not say it then, but we can say it today;... he was the minister of the age ...”

What Lee had to say is where Jeremiah 23:34-36 comes in. Of course the audio or video of this conference is not likely to see the light of day for anyone to verify what Lee actually said.

[Ohio]

JJ: MOTA concept is a root of evil.


Freedom: A theory of mine is that the teachings of a 'MOTA' and deification go hand in hand. Shortly before focusing on the “high peak” (aka deification), WL made the claim to be the ‘MOTA’.


Terry: In the local churches there's a desire to be unique or have uniqueness. To set aside Lee and his ministry and settle for just Jesus, all uniqueness would be lost.

The very concept of "Recovery," with all its implications, is fraught with dangers. Sure, it sounded so good when we first heard it, but consider the results.

For many of us, the LC meetings ignited or re-ignited our love for Jesus, which of course was wonderful. Immediately thereafter we were instructed that all of Christianity was degraded, and that we alone have left Babylon, like Israel of old. We alone were "recovered" to the proper ground, a recovery which began with the Protestant Reformation. Many gifted men of God were instrumental in those days like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Huss, Luther, Farel, Calvin, Erasmus, Zwingli, etc.

Why did Nee and Lee choose Luther? For me this was a huge factor in the corruption we see in the "Recovery." Why did any man needed to be identified as the beginner of the Lord's Recovery? Should not we have been instructed to only give glory to God, to the Man Jesus, to the moving of the Spirit, for all the great things He has done? In Nee's and Lee's version of church history, as soon as Luther was promoted, and later honored as the first MOTA, the stage props were all in place. Now we simply need to "fill in the blanks" until we arrived at our own version of 20th century MOTAs. How convenient, and how very self-serving.

This distorted view of church history has accomplished the following:

• Pride. Look at Laodicea. We are the best of the best. Exclusivism and elitism. All others are degraded and hopelessly divided. We alone are blessed. We alone are His testimony. Etc.
• MOTA. Deputy Authority. A man on earth who has replaced the pope, but is not the Head of the body either. All God's work, all the Son's speaking, and all the Spirit's moving must flow through him. He alone is without peer, and accountable to no one.
• Heresy. Errors. Teachings replace the Word of God. Novel teachings like deification are extolled as God's up-to-date revelation.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The very concept of "Recovery," with all its implications, is fraught with dangers. Sure, it sounded so good when we first heard it, but consider the results.

When I first encountered the movement, the point of emphasis was always "Christ and the Church." Who could argue with that? It was pure and uplifting.

Things slowly began to change, however. I was always a little bothered when the leading ones would effuse about how great Witness Lee was.

"Christ and the Church" steadily evolved into "Lee and the Recovery." "The Ministry" replaced Christ, and "the Recovery" for all our practical purposes was the Church. We went from a blessed and proper generality to an exclusiveness second to none.

Remember the book Animal Farm, the allegorical story about the beginnings of communism? It started out with "All animals are equal" (Christ and the Church) and ended with "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" (Lee and the Recovery). The transition happened slowly and subtly, and since it had the support of leadership no one could argue with it. The animals became more and more concerned that something was not quite right, but had no power to do anything about it. Near the end, the treacherous pigs in charge (ahem) saw Boxer, the strong, noble horse, as a threat, and had him shipped off to the glue factory.

It's easy to see the parallels. A lot of precious brothers and sisters were shipped to the glue factory.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

When I first encountered the movement, the point of emphasis was always "Christ and the Church." Who could argue with that?

While there are references from Paul concerning the church as the body of Christ, does that elevate reference to the church to essentially an equal billing with Christ?

I do not simply disagree with your comment that it is "pure and uplifting." But I wonder if the statement is, by definition, incorrect even though we did not think of it as meaning something over-elevated. It surely was something that we committed ourselves to as if it was to Christ. And while we are charged to be devoted (maybe even committed) to each other, is that intended to be the same as what we are to Christ? Or just equal to what we are to ourselves?

Was the church something that was seen as definitionally pure and Christ-like, therefore seen as a version of stand-in for Christ? Was (and maybe still is) the church a non-RCC form of saint to be all but prayed to? To take our focus off of Christ and his commands and place it on something else (even something we think of a pure and uplifting)?

I know that the rhetoric concerning the church increased over time, but was it truly "pure and uplifting" in the beginning, or did we just not see the error in it?

As for where it eventually went, there is no question. But if it was so easily morphed beyond what might be acceptable, maybe it never really was. Just too close to notice.

Not saying, but asking.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

While there are references from Paul concerning the church as the body of Christ, does that elevate reference to the church to essentially an equal billing with Christ?

I do not simply disagree with your comment that it is "pure and uplifting." But I wonder if the statement is, by definition, incorrect even though we did not think of it as meaning something over-elevated.

I didn't mean Christ and the Church totally in the way the LC meant it. I just mean it's about as generic as you can get, besides saying "God and his people," I guess.

I know the LC elevated the Church to almost deity level. But that's not what I meant. I just meant if you stick to Christ and his Church when describing what God is doing it's hard to go wrong. But the LC did go wrong with it, didn't they? So I guess that blows my theory out of the water.

[OBW]

We alone were "recovered" to the proper ground, a recovery which began with the Protestant Reformation. Many gifted men of God were instrumental in those days like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Huss, Luther, Farel, Calvin, Erasmus, Zwingli, etc.

Why did Nee and Lee choose Luther?

(Not challenging Ohio here. Just thinking out loud.)

I have been wondering whether the whole course of Christianity would have been different if Luther had allowed the then-normal course of discussion on issues to continue as it had. What if, rather than simply jumping ship when everything didn't go as wanted, the discussion had remained within the system that was at the time?

One answer is that changes would have been slower. But is that entirely bad or wrong? When we look at the little council in Jerusalem, was the decree that they came up with perfect? What if, rather than allowing for the ban on things strangled (is wringing a chicken's neck a form of strangling?) some of them had simply decided to part company with the rest and moved on because of it?

That is what Protestants have been doing for 500 years now. When the existing group within which someone finds themselves does not simply listen to "my" new thinking and change, "I" simply disassociate and start a new group.

Despite my current questions and thinking, I would not see that as a reason to simply return to the RCC (a historical return, not that I have ever been part of it). But maybe it gives us a reason to see the history of "recovery" in a different light. Maybe each of those persons in the list brought something that had been ignored to the table. But was the fact that they almost all tended to see those things as worthy of separating from others evidence that maybe the value of those things was not to the extreme that they made them out to be? Were any of them truly worth separating from others over?

I mean, what did Calvin really give us besides doctrines? Did the actual truth change? Did a lack of understanding things his way actually result in fewer Christians? Or just fewer that held to his doctrines? Are those that believe in Christ without having as typical Evangelical crisis event complete with a sinner's prayer unsaved? Are those who simply come to believe in Christ and follow deficient Christians? Are their simple prayers deficient because they are not full of grandiose clichéd quotes of scripture or sayings popular with "my" particular version of Christianity?

I realize that this is probably not directly about a deification doctrine. But at the same time, maybe having a more sober assessment of ourselves and our present groups would help us see such a "doctrine" as even more ridiculous than we already do. Maybe a more simple understanding of the Christian faith and life would put such a construct where it belongs — in the garbage heap.

[Ohio]

(Not challenging Ohio here. Just thinking out loud.)

That's exactly what John Darby said about his numerous writings.

I never could understand what he was trying to say.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's exactly what John Darby said about his numerous writings.

I never could understand what he was trying to say.

I don't know about Darby, but I was looking at what appeared to be your rehash of the way Lee concluded that Luther was any kind of "THE" anything. Same could have been said about the others. The only think Luther did was really get under the skin of the RCC.

I didn't think that where I was going was in any way contrary to what you were saying. Yet sometimes people start wondering about there being an argument if the springboard begins in something someone else said. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It just got me thinking about how it was that Luther got anybody's attention. Maybe he riled up the RCC a little more than others had. But the method of having discussions about issues of practice, faith, and doctrine had carried on for many years in the way Luther tried to start that particular dialog. Maybe it was the way he phrased something that got them hot about it. But there had been changes over the years. And at this time, several of the items that were on Luther's list have been absorbed into the RCC teachings, positions, even dogma, even if not precisely as Protestants, or more specifically Evangelicals practice and believe things to be.

And while I am firmly Protestant, and more specifically Evangelical, the way of jumping ship every time there is a disagreement essentially leaves the issue un-discussed. Yes, each group discusses it within themselves — mostly with a conclusion seeking to find reasons to keep things the way they are. Little open dialog of differences within a group because it is uncomfortable for there to be differences of opinion with the group. So generally that means someone has to leave. Or is at least unofficially requested to stop if they want to stay.


And I'm not sure that is so much better than the RCC. Not suggesting anyone join the RCC. But maybe there needs to be a little more internal turmoil within our groups to truly live with relatively "open border" as far as our secondary doctrines are concerned. And quit acting as if "new" is the same thing as "spiritual." Or alternately that "old" is the same thing as "spiritual." Neither is spiritual because of its newness or oldness. Things are spiritual because it is people of God undertaking something that is of value. Whether that is an old mode of liturgy, an old hymn, or a new praise chorus. Whether it is that way it was done 300 year sago (or even longer) or the way we changed it to last week.

The real key is whether the people engaged are truly bearing the image of God and coming together to worship the one that they claim to represent.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by OBW

I mean, what did Calvin really give us besides doctrines? Did the actual truth change? .

I think that is profound. The truth could never change. I appreciate Calvin's ability to distill the truth into understandable doctrine. But, as a human man I need much more than doctrine. I need an intimate Savior who understands my human dilemma of lugging around a being put to death flesh, I need a great high priest. Somehow the LC helped me revive these subjective experiences, but I think the Spirit is able to use many things to revive our love. For me it was many years in the LC, maybe for others it will be from some other venue. There is nothing unique about Witness Lee's recovery movement, but there are millions of things unique about the Spirit's capacity to draw men to Jesus. Those wanting to be unique are following their master the lord of the flies.

[OBW]

Not sure what experiences we had on the whole. They were subjective. And since they were viewed as positive (our subjective analysis) we credit them with being spiritual.

But is it really so? And are all of these subjective experiences what it is about?

I find it somewhat funny now that in my early days in the LCM, we sang variant words to "Since I Have Been Redeemed" with "Jesus is Lord of All" in the place of "Since I have been redeemed." (I have a hymnal and an old supplement around somewhere, but am not going looking for it to analyze at this time.) But one of the lines said "The feelings do not change the fact" followed by the oft repeated "Jesus is Lord of All."

And of all the things in songs to make fun of, that is not one of them. Feelings are really not relevant to whether Jesus is Lord, you are saved, or anything else.

What is funny is that without the feelings, I'm not sure that we would have stuck around so long. And since the feelings were helping us stay in a place of such poor character and teaching, I begin to wonder what kind of feelings they really were.

And those were our subjective experiences.

I guess if our subjective experiences were that we were in a dry place and Jesus brought us spiritual food and water to survive it, then they were true spiritual experiences. Otherwise, maybe we need to rethink the nature of those experiences.

Is it possible that we really don't like to admit that we got hooked into a place that was actually so poor, therefore we need to claim that the earlier days were so wonderful? Listen to the stories of those who came in the 60s and left by the early 70s. Or came in the 70s and left in the early 80s. And so on. In so many cases, the story is of a "wonderful" start that went south. But if the ones in the 60s were even sort of right, then how did anyone in the 70s, 80s, or 90s and beyond have a "wonderful start"?

Maybe it is in our own desire to find something good, think we have, then later realize there are problems, so we see the problems as something that changed when it might better be that we were tricked by the very sense that there was ever anything really so good.