Relationships/Courting

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Witness Lee made many lawful things sinful, and this has screwed me up to my core.

Witness Lee ran a comprehensive social conditioning programme where thinking, which is not only our God-given right but also our duty, was considered tantamount to rebellion.

If anyone sat down and tried to figure things out for themselves, they were considered dangerous subversives and a threat to godly order, being variously called independent, divisive, factional, and ambitious.

And Watchman Nee was lauded, lionized even, for doing exactly that. Yet for us it was forbidden.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by aron

Witness Lee ran a comprehensive social conditioning programme where thinking, which is not only our God-given right but also our duty, was considered tantamount to rebellion.

If anyone sat down and tried to figure things out for themselves, they were considered dangerous subversives and a threat to godly order, being variously called independent, divisive, factional, and ambitious.

And Watchman Nee was lauded, lionized even, for doing exactly that. Yet for us it was forbidden.

This was exactly my experience. I remember reading one of the Psalms once in a small group. I wondered, as in saying, " I wonder..." if what the footnote said about there being some Psalms that were written according to the human concept and some according to the spiritual one worked in the Psalm we were talking about. Immediately, a sister jumped in and said, "that's what the footnote says and that's how I understand it. There are two lines in the Psalms... it's right there". And then I said, "Or...it's not." I received a mixed bag of looks that ranged from daggers to confusion.

I always remember the verses where the Lord REASONS with people, where Paul REASONS with people.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

This was exactly my experience. I remember reading one of the Psalms once in a small group. I wondered, as in saying, " I wonder..." if what the footnote said about there being some Psalms that were written according to the human concept and some according to the spiritual one worked in the Psalm we were talking about. Immediately, a sister jumped in and said, "that's what the footnote says and that's how I understand it. There are two lines in the Psalms... it's right there". And then I said, "Or...it's not." I received a mixed bag of looks that ranged from daggers to confusion.

I always remember the verses where the Lord REASONS with people, where Paul REASONS with people.

The word Reason in the bible means differently to what you say.

On Isaiah 1:18 (for example), Ellicott's commentary says:

Come now, and let us reason together.—The Authorised Version suggests the thought of a discussion between equals. The Hebrew implies rather the tone of one who gives an authoritative ultimatum, as from a judge to the accused, who had no defence, or only a sham defence, to offer (Micah 6:2-3). “Let us sum up the pleadings—that ultimatum is one of grace and mercy—‘Repent, and be forgiven.’”


This and other commentaries explain that reasoning with God is not as thou sayest:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/1-18.htm

For this reason I must reject any idea that the Lord reasons with people as equals or entertains their meager opinions. What's the Lord going to do, accept our mere human opinion? (consider Job). Rather, the Lord's reasoning is an authoritative ultimatum - it's God's way or nothing.

In fact, the story of Job is a good example of how God reasons with people. This reasoning is not one of best friends sharing their opinions. It is one of God showing that He is God, and Job is not. God says this about Job's opinions:

Job 38:2 “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge?

Job 40:2 "“Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?"

Job responds:

Job 42:3 "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know."

Proverbs 18:2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

The bible emphasizes teacher-student (disciple) relationships. Not round-table discussions where each person has a turn in stating their opinion and everyone goes home feeling enlightened. Most denominational bible studies are run as round-table opinion chit-chats, and everyone goes home with the same opinions they came in with (they will often pose the useless questions "what do you think about this?" "what do you feel about that"?). A genuine bible study is where a teacher or someone who knows more than the students, will enlighten the students, so the students leave knowing more than they did before. Jesus taught the 12 disciples, they in turn taught their disciples, and so on and so forth. This is the biblical pattern. Sometimes in a small group it is nice to know other people's opinions, but unless one of those opinions is the truth and the correct interpretation, no one is going to be enlightened.

There is a quote by Isaac Asimov which is relevant:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The bible emphasizes teacher-student (disciple) relationships.

The NT shows a network of peers, all learning from the Lord. "Were not our hearts burning, as He (the Lord) opened to us the scriptures."

There is one Master. The dominant/submissive relations you imply are antithetical to the spirit of Jesus. In the LC you get one man's ignorant opinions. Why can't we critique them, just as he did with others?

If you want to see good leadership, look at George Washington. His generals were nothing if not opinionated. Washington would let them hash it out in front of him, as he carefully watched. Then he would speak for group consensus. Kind of like Peter and James in Acts 15, after "much discussion" (vv. 7,13)

In the LC you get one man's ignorant opinion, presented as divine fiat.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

The NT shows a network of peers, all learning from the Lord. "Were not our hearts burning, as He (the Lord) opened to us the scriptures."

There is one Master. The dominant/submissive relations you imply are antithetical to the spirit of Jesus. In the LC you get one man's ignorant opinions. Why can't we critique them, just as he did with others?

If you want to see good leadership, look at George Washington. His generals were nothing if not opinionated. Washington would let them hash it out in front of him, as he carefully watched. Then he would speak for group consensus. Kind of like Peter and James in Acts 15, after "much discussion" (vv. 7,13)

In the LC you get one man's ignorant opinion, presented as divine fiat.

In the Bible we do not see much critique of Jesus's teachings by his disciples. We see doubts, questions, "what did you mean Lord?", but no critique as such. Rather, it was the Pharisees who critiqued his teachings.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In the Bible we do not see much critique of Jesus's teachings by his disciples. We see doubts, questions, "what did you mean Lord?", but no critique as such. Rather, it was the Pharisees who critiqued his teachings.

So then why did LSM put out a magazine called "Affirmation & Critque" if we aren't supposed to critique Jesus? Does this imply that WL is today's Jesus, the Untouchable One?

I do get the point with Jesus, but not with the application to Lee. Why was he beyond reproach, even when his reasonings were of poor quality (inconsistent, arbitrary, at variance with NT patterns, &c).

Your One Great Man Per Age theorem either reduces Jesus or it elevates Darby/Nee/Lee&c. Either way it's wrong, and entirely against the spirit of the NT.

Back to relationships/courting- if proscribing arranged romantic relationships and squashing them out of elder-approved domains is causing so much angst, why can't we critique that? And, shouldn't we ask if this is merely cultural convention at work? Aren't we being sold human culture here as though it were divine?