“Man Becoming God” as Explained by
Witness Lee and the "Lord's Recovery"
The Lord's Recovery Church has been continually exposed by many evangelical Christians as a cult because of their unbiblical teachings about God, salvation, authority, practices, among others. In addition, they are also criticized because of their belief that “man can become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead” as a result of the mingling process.
They usually have a habit of turning to the writings of the early church fathers and the Eastern Orthodox church to defend their own interpretation of “theosis.” However, there is a vast difference between the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox church and Witness Lee of the Lord's Recovery Church which is believed by the “local church” members in terms of "deification of man."
According to Robert Bowman in his article entitled “Ye Are Gods? Orthodox and Heretical Views on the Deification of Man,” the Eastern Orthodox church “teach that men are ‘deified’ in the sense that the Holy Spirit dwells within Christian believers and transforms them into the image of God in Christ, eventually endowing them in the resurrection with immortality and God’s perfect moral character.”
Hank Hanegraaff clearly explained what some evangelical prosperity teachers including the Eastern Orthodox church mean by “men being deified” in his controversial book "Christianity in Crisis,"
“First, it should be pointed out that the phrase ‘little gods’ may be unfortunate, but it is not heretical in and on itself, as long as it is not intended to convey that man is equal with, or a part of, God. The Eastern Orthodox church, for example, teaches that Christians are deified in the sense that they are adopted as sons of God, indwelt by the Spirit of God, and brought into communion with God which ultimately leads to glorification.”[1]
However, Lee went further by stating the following in his material “Life-study of Job” on page 157 as quoted by a “local church” apologist Ron Kangas in a booklet that serves as a response to a certain J.S. allegedly slandering Lee,
“Seeing God equals gaining God (Matt 5:8). To gain God is to receive God in His element, and in His nature. Eventually, this not only makes us one with God--it even makes us part of God…. To be made a part of God—to be constituted with God in His life and nature, is more than being one with God. We see God that we may be constituted with God, yet we do not have any share in the Godhead.”[2]
It is ironic that Kerry S. Robichaux in the said booklet quoted Hanegraaff’s statement above on page 37 to justify their own teaching about “God-Men” while not even bothering to check that the Bible-Answer Man himself actually contradicts and exposes them as heretical when Lee wrote they are “part of God” eventhough they abhor themselves to be sharers in the Godhead.
Bowman also clarified that,
It may be objected that to classify as monotheistic any doctrine which refers to men in some positive sense as “gods” is self-contradictory; and strictly speaking such an objection is valid. Indeed, later in this study it shall be argued that such terminology is not biblical. However, the point here is that however inconsistent and confusing the language that is used (and it is inconsistent), the substance of what the Eastern Orthodox are seeking to express when they speak of deification is actually faithful to the monotheistic world view. The language used is polytheistic, and in the light of Scripture should be rejected; but the doctrine intended by this language in the context of the teachings of the fathers and of Eastern Orthodoxy is quite biblical, and is thus not actually polytheistic.Thus, it should not be argued that anyone who speaks of ‘deification’ necessarily holds to a heretical view of man. Such a sweeping judgment would condemn many of the early church's greatest theologians (e.g. Athanasius, Augustine), as well as one of the three main branches of historic orthodox Christianity in existence today. On the other hand, some doctrines of deification are most certainly heretical, because they are unbiblical in substance as well as terminology.[3]
Therefore, based from our research the definition and intended use of “theosis” by the early church fathers and Eastern Orthodox church is different from what Witness Lee and his proponents are trying to say. (JM)