The Ground Of The Church [Archive] - Page 2

Hope

12-31-2008, 09:28 AM

Hope,

I agree with Terry. As a relatively young generation, I need your balanced insights, at least not to repeat the same things. I'm supposed to return to my country sooner or later after completing my life in the mainland China.

These days I'm considering what I shoud do when I come back to the local church I belonged to for so long. What would you sugget me?
Gubei

Dear Gubei,

I prefer the Lord’s own advice to mine. That is to Love God and our neighbor. I prefer the advice of Paul that we would serve in S/spirit not in letter. Please see verses below. All this talk about models is to miss the mark. The Southern Baptist model is off. Igzy’s “free movement” model is off. The practice of the LSM/LC model is off. Once we seek to serve by the letter, (a system, method or model) we will find ourselves in oldness. I can fellowship for days on this matter using reams of scripture. May we leave this for another time. May the Lord be full of grace and compassion as you seek to follow him.

Hope, Don Rutledge

Matt 22:37-40, And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." NASB

1 John 2:10, The one who loves his brother abides in the light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. NASB

1 John 3:14-16, We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. 16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. NIV

Rom 7:6, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. NASB

Rom 12:2, Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will. NIV

Cal

12-31-2008, 09:34 AM

The principle of denomination is that you set yourself apart from all other believers. The principle of the church is that you are one with all other believers.

Everybody draws some kind of circle around their little group. Whether it is a doctrine or teaching or practice or leader, whether it is overt or subtle, every group draws a circle and has a boundary. The principle of the church is simply to draw a bigger circle -- even reaching as far as the boundary of the locality in order to include every believer.

Toledo, I think you make a good point. If you feel to meet as a church that includes all believers in the locality then please do so.

To my mind, any genuine church must receive all believers, otherwise they are a sect. Almost all Christian groups realize and practice this now. They receive all believers. So at least part of what you are envisioning is already in place.

However, they probably don't say their church includes all believers in the locality. This is not because of divisiveness, but because of not wanting to be rude. It just sounds a presumptive for a group to say "Everyone is a member of our church." It sounds like they are making decisions for everyone and setting themselves above every other group. They would likely choose to say that they welcome all believers.

Would you say then that they are lacking in vision, or worse, divisive? What would you say is the problem and, more importantly, what is your remedy for it?

Cal

12-31-2008, 09:41 AM

Igzy’s “free movement” model is off.

Dear Hope,

Could well be. But it happens to be the model the Lord is operating in in this day and age. And at the very least it's the lesser of all the other "evils" I've seen and heard.

Hope

12-31-2008, 09:59 AM

The following is Toledo's answer to a post by cityonahill. (click on arrow or scroll down to full post)

Not all. The New Testament requirement is that we must receive all whom the Lord has received. His requirement seems simple as well: whoever calls upon the Lord shall be saved, or as many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on His name.....

Good Morning Dear Brother Toledo,

My you can say things so well in a short way. I must say amen. Thank you for your post.

Here are a few verses on doing whatever is right in our own eyes. Moses declared that this was one of the practices of the wilderness that needed to cease. Yet the time of the Judges (a time of degradation) is described as everyone doing what is right in his own eyes. LORD SAVE US FROM OUR OWN PREFERENCES AND TASTES.

Hope, Don Rutledge

A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to become a true disciple.

John 8:31-32, Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. " NASB

A few verses on doing things by our own preferences and tastes.

Deut 12:8-9, You shall not do at all what we are doing here today, every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes; NASB

Judg 17:6, In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes. NASB

Judg 21:25, In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. NASB

Prov 21:2, Every man's way is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the hearts. NASB

Prov 16:2, All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, but the LORD weighs the motives. NASB

Prov 16:25, There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. NASB

Cal

12-31-2008, 10:06 AM

By the way, in my "free movement" model, so called, I never said we were free to do anything by our preferences and tastes. I said that no one has the right to judge for us whether we are doing that but the Lord. So if I move from group A to group B, it's nobody's business but the Lord's.

My model always presupposed that something done "freely" was done with the Lord's permission.

What the LC did (and I hope not Hope), is declare that if you left their group you were by definition doing something by your "preference and taste."

This is plainly just sheer stupidity, the implementation of a circular argument meant to control people.

Toledo

12-31-2008, 10:13 AM

Could well be. But it happens to be the model the Lord is operating in in this day and age. And at the very least it's the lesser of all the other "evils" I've seen and heard.
In 1969 in Columbus, Ohio, Reverend S.A. Luke of the Frebis Avenue Church of God told me that this is the age of denominations, and that the Lord is blessing His people in the denominations. Sorry, I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

Of course the Lord's presence is there in the denominations -- He promised that wherever two or three are gathered together, He'd be in the midst.

But just because the Bible says:"If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there," doesn't mean that hell is a good place to meet...

Toledo

12-31-2008, 10:23 AM

I said that no one has the right to judge for us whether we are doing that but the Lord. So if I move from group A to group B, it's nobody's business but the Lord's.
Zing! An excellent point.

It would seem that many of us love to quote John 21: "Lord, and what shall this man do?", but neglect the Lord's reply: "what is that to thee?"

I think it is a grave error for me to be telling other brothers how they should go on with the Lord, while neglecting the speaking I have from Him in my heart. Something about having a log in my own eye comes to mind...

OBW

12-31-2008, 10:29 AM

Igzy said:

To my mind, any genuine church must receive all believers, otherwise they are a sect. Almost all Christian groups realize and practice this now. They receive all believers. So at least part of what you are envisioning is already in place.

This is so true. Sunday we observed the Lord’s table. It was clearly stated before we began that it was not the table of IBC, but that all born again believers were welcome.

Toledo said:

In 1969 in Columbus, Ohio, Reverend S.A. Luke of the Frebis Avenue Church of God told me that this is the age of denominations, and that the Lord is blessing His people in the denominations. Sorry, I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

Of course the Lord's presence is there in the denominations -- He promised that wherever two or three are gathered together, He'd be in the midst.

But just because the Bible says: "If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there," doesn't mean that hell is a good place to meet...

You were correct to say that this is not the age of denominations. But it is also not the age of some other subset of the church, such as the church according to cities, or other narrow definition. It is the age of the church. And as Igzy pointed out, it is Christ who will build the church. We are to pursue the things of peace, and things that build one another.

Hope

12-31-2008, 10:34 AM

Dear Posters,

While we are pointing our the failure of the LC model, what about everybody else? If the divisions among the work of WN and WL are proof that their model of the city church does not work, then what do we say about all the denominations, ministry churches etc. Do they have a wrong model? Does our analysis cut both ways? There are 17 major denominations among the Baptist alone. All practice believers baptism by full immersion. What went wrong? Well maybe they are not really divisions but only needed to stretch their wings and do things more to their liking. Confussing isn't it.

I know several dear believers who have bounced from one Bible Church to another. One phrase I have heard often is "my needs were not being met." Another is "I prefer a larger group," or "I prefer a smaller group." My favorite is "I prefer their worship team and praise service."

WN and WL addressed the problem of division. Was that a mistake? They also had a model and ideal for oneness. Was that a mistake? Was their thought right but their model wrong? If oneness and division are legitimate topics are all christians and christian groups measured by the same standard.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple.
John 8:31-32, Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. " NASB

OBW

12-31-2008, 10:54 AM

What went wrong?Maybe the problem is that we are focused on the wrong things. Instead of wondering how some have erred (in our opinion) we should be pursuing the things that build one another. And we should understand “one another” much more broadly than just our small sphere ─ or as the song said it “our day and sect.”

We do have differences. Just as there are some who have the peace to eat meat that was offered to idols (Romans 14) but others who have a problem with such things, we cannot condemn those who we think are in error relative to our “scruples.”

Cal

12-31-2008, 10:55 AM

Hope,

Excellent questions! Now this thread is getting somewhere.

Watchman Nee surely meant well with his locality model. The flaw in it is the insistence on a borders of a city being the borders of a church. It is easy to see that this leaves all kinds of ragged edges, starting with that New Testament doesn't really make this clear, right up to the size, practical overlapping and other nuances of modern cities.

Another problem with it is that it presupposes a model that can be recognized and--and this is key--enforced to the point that those that don't adhere to can be deemed divisive, i.e. we can know who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are. Seems God doesn't really want us to know this.

It seems to me that if the Lord wanted such a clear model he would have given us one. But referring again to the well-worn analogy of the Trinity, we see the pattern, but we cannot agree about the specifics. The problem is with locality, not agreeing on the specifics equals failure. And there will never, ever, be agreement on the specifics.

Divisions over the flesh are bad. Divisions over the Spirit are not. The LC model seeks to define--outwardly with one simple rule--which these are. Can't be done.

Cal

12-31-2008, 11:04 AM

In 1969 in Columbus, Ohio, Reverend S.A. Luke of the Frebis Avenue Church of God told me that this is the age of denominations, and that the Lord is blessing His people in the denominations. Sorry, I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

Of course the Lord's presence is there in the denominations -- He promised that wherever two or three are gathered together, He'd be in the midst.

But just because the Bible says:"If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there," doesn't mean that hell is a good place to meet...

Yes, but the church is not a place, it's a group of people, as you have pointed out. Are you saying there is a group of people meeting in the Lord's name who are hell? (No comments about my family reunions, please.)

Also, I do not believe in the age of denominations. But a community church is not a denomination. It's a whole different animal. Also, many churches, particularly Baptist churches are dropping "Baptist" from their name. Plus, let's give Baptists due credit. They practically invented autonomous churches.

I was simply pointing out that the Lord is operating in the situation today. Don't make the good the enemy of the best.

YP0534

12-31-2008, 11:05 AM

While we are pointing our the failure of the LC model, what about everybody else?..

That the teaching regarding one church-one city is not articulated in a fashion that would allow mandatory application is completely a matter of sovereign arrangement.

If it were capable of being forced upon someone, we would of necessity all be members of the one Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church, which might potentially come to view the threat of dissenting opinions to its cherished membership to be so grave as to declare war upon the heretics.

Oh. Wait.

Yeah.

Toledo

12-31-2008, 11:29 AM

I was simply pointing out that the Lord is operating in the situation today. Don't make the good the enemy of the best.
Fair enough. Neither should we make the bad the enemy of the best. So many posters here keep trying to measure the principle of oneness by the failures of the LSM denominational churches.

Just because their experiment failed due to the lusts, ambitions, and rivalries of the "Blended Brothers" (falsely so-called), does not mean that some should not still endeavor to come back to meeting simply and in oneness.

Cal

12-31-2008, 11:40 AM

Hope

12-31-2008, 12:57 PM

You were correct to say that this is not the age of denominations. But it is also not the age of some other subset of the church, such as the church according to cities, or other narrow definition. It is the age of the church. And as Igzy pointed out, it is Christ who will build the church. We are to pursue the things of peace, and things that build one another.

Mike,

Great reminder. See bold text above.

Surely it is not the age of denominations. Surely it is not the age of some subset of the church. But then the Lord did issue a call for overcomers to the seven churches. In 1 Cor. Chapter 11 Paul did referred to those who “were approved.” He also warned us to be careful how we build. By the way what do you feel is to build with wood, hay and stubble? What is to build with gold, silver and precious stone? Should we care?

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who desires to be a true disciple.

OBW

12-31-2008, 03:17 PM

Mike,

Great reminder. See bold text above.

Surely it is not the age of denominations. Surely it is not the age of some subset of the church. But then the Lord did issue a call for overcomers to the seven churches. In 1 Cor. Chapter 11 Paul did referred to those who “were approved.” He also warned us to be careful how we build. By the way what do you feel is to build with wood, hay and stubble? What is to build with gold, silver and precious stone? Should we care?

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who desires to be a true disciple.I don’t necessarily know what is wood v gold. But in the context of 1 Cor 3, the persons who were being referred to as “building” with anything were not the Corinthian believers, but the ones who they had decided to take up sides behind. Please refer to the entirety of the chapter, noting the transition in verse 9 which identifies Paul and the others that the Corinthians were aligning behind as workers while they, the Corinthians were the building. The ones who are then building in the following verses are not the Corinthians, but the workers — Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and others.

It is interesting that Paul did not define wood, hay, stubble, gold, silver, or precious stones. He simply said that what got built into the church would be tried and the one who built it would suffer some sort of problem/loss (not clearly stated) if his work burned. Paul didn’t even say that the Corinthians were responsible to make the determination about what was wood, hay, or stubble, or was instead gold, silver or precious stone — at least not within the context of these verses. He told them that the workers were coming to build and that what they built with would be tried. (This — the building by the workers — might be somewhat of a parallel with Ephesians where there are the apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers that equip the saints. Equipping with wood in that context would be parallel with these verse in 1 Cor.)

Paul was telling the Corinthians that picking sides was not their concern. That is not entirely consistent with other verses where there is a charge that some be denied the right to teach, but in most cases, those kinds of admonitions were clearly to the leadership, such as in Paul’s letters to Timothy and/or Titus. Peter and John also had things to say about the discernment of the believers concerning teachings and teachers. It is not clear that this was to be personal discernment or the collective discernment of the assembly. I would lean toward the latter, more like the council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15.

I do not say that we should not care about what is kindling v what is fireproof. This is especially true of those who have responsibility to care for the flock. But the flock itself is not necessarily the source of that determination. I realize that this is a little too much like a clergy-laity issue, but the scriptures seem to point more in this direction than in any other. I fear that this is one of those places where we fall back into the mindset that we learned from Lee and the LC. If the leaders are true servants of the flock, the “evils” of the kind of clergy that Lee talked against are not an automatic thing.

As for the letters to the seven churched in Rev 2 & 3, each church was clearly in differing circumstances, yet none were told to abandon their particular place of worship and flee to one or more of the others. The charge and challenge in each case was to be strong, diligent to overcome, not to change to some other way of meeting or to “take the ground.” While each letter ended with the general admonition to hear what the Spirit said to the churches (plural), there was otherwise no indication that any one was admonished to be like another, except to the extent that each could read of the positive things that were said about the others and thereby have a pattern to follow.

This is a general discussion of my understanding on this. We could nuance things, as has Gubei and others, but what I have outlined here is sound and scriptural. Pursuing the things of peace would not seem to be consistent with always feeling obligated to have your radar out to discern the wood from the gold. Too much of the LC-type discernment is about putting borders around truth and practice such that many things that are allowed in the freedom of Christ are deemed not allowed. Look at Romans 14. It seems that the LC is the weaker believers always going out of their way to find believers who have more freedom than they observe in their restricted consciences. It is true that Paul said that the stronger ones practicing their freedom in front of weaker ones could stumble those weaker ones. But the LC claims to be the strongest, yet puts more restrictions on freedom in Christ than almost any others. They seem to go out seeking to find those who are not bound as they are (almost too parallel with “seeking to devour”). If there are Judaizers going out from James in these days, metaphorically speaking, I think it is more likely the LC than any others.

Hope

12-31-2008, 04:24 PM

Mike,

I enjoyed your expounding of 1 Cor. Chapter three. (See post #267)

I have always applied the phrases, 1 Cor 3:12, “Now if any man builds” and 1 Cor 3:13, “each man's work," to everyone. Since Paul does referred to the Corinthians as God’s building then the builders could certainly be a different set of person, aka Paul, Apollos, and Cephas. If they are indeed equivalent to the gifted members in Ephesians chapter four, then the charge of 1 Cor 3:10, “But let each man be careful how he builds upon it.”, becomes a very serious admonition for anyone who has any type of oversight-teaching-shepherding ministry.

For a long time I applied the following to myself as a leading one of the church in Dallas, 1 Cor 3:17, “If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him.” I believed that my failures had to some degree lead to a tearing down of the various brothers and sisters. I am sure that is true but I now believe that the Lord has forgiven me and I am again called on to build. I have come to greatly appreciate, Rom 11:29, “for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

If you allow me to accept your interpretation, then many in the LSM/LC leadership current and past are subject to more than just a little inspection.

While I agree 1 Cor. three does not charge the saints to check the builders to see if they are up to code so to speak, there are plenty of passages that do tell us that those who labor among the believers must give an account and that the believers should test their work.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple.

Would you care to comment on 1 Cor 11:19, For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you.

In particular, address “who are approved.”

Oregon

01-01-2009, 08:14 AM

Fair enough. Neither should we make the bad the enemy of the best. So many posters here keep trying to measure the principle of oneness by the failures of the LSM denominational churches.

Just because their experiment failed due to the lusts, ambitions, and rivalries of the "Blended Brothers" (falsely so-called), does not mean that some should not still endeavor to come back to meeting simply and in oneness.

I have to agree with Toledo. God has put dear brothers in my work environment that have no association with the local church in any way. I’ve become quite close to these brothers and would miss them very much if they were no longer in my sphere of life.
God’s presence is certainly with all of his people but the oneness of the body locally should be more than just an “in the spirit” thing. The body is universally one…..it should also be one locally. All the believers in any locality being the one body should not be just a spiritual reality but should be practiced as such. The failure and exclusiveness of some should not cause us to depart from the truth spoken to us in God’s Word.

“so that there may be no division in the body” I Cor.12:25

Cal

01-01-2009, 09:31 AM

YP0534

01-01-2009, 09:36 AM

Hope

01-01-2009, 10:31 AM

I have to agree with Toledo. God has put dear brothers in my work environment that have no association with the local church in any way. I’ve become quite close to these brothers and would miss them very much if they were no longer in my sphere of life.
God’s presence is certainly with all of his people but the oneness of the body locally should be more than just an “in the spirit” thing. The body is universally one…..it should also be one locally. All the believers in any locality being the one body should not be just a spiritual reality but should be practiced as such. The failure and exclusiveness of some should not cause us to depart from the truth spoken to us in God’s Word.

“so that there may be no division in the body” I Cor.12:25

Dear Oregon,

Excellent points: Your statement should be a serious consideration, “God’s presence is certainly with all of his people but the oneness of the body locally should be more than just an ‘in the spirit,’ thing”.

But is there any need to practically practice a spiritual reality?

Why did Paul in his first letter to Corinth mention division three times?

Could a poster or two address these two questions?

1 Cor 1:10, Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you,

1 Cor 11:18, For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it.

1 Cor 12:25, that there should be no division in the body

I have concluded that the posters here have agreed that the LSM/LC got it wrong. (Wow! Aren’t I sharp?) The LSM notions of “oneness” and “division” are not anywhere close to Biblical truth. Over time they got so deep in the woods of error that they can no longer see the forest.

I believe it is a good exercise to consider how they got so deep in the woods. Thus, there is a need for both a fair recounting of history and a cool calm consideration of truth and today’s situation with them and the Body of Christ in general.

One theme I read repeatedly is the “poor poor Christianity” mantra of WL. This does need to be examined but I believe in a very cool calm manner as the topic is white hot all by itself. WL’s application of the incestuous children of Lot as the fruit of the gospel among “free group” Christians is way too dramatic and just over the top. Such expounding does not build anyone up but only lays a foundation to condemn and belittle genuine born again believers.

On the other hand, I have real problems, for example, with the prosperity gospel preachers. I have seen too many young believers stumbled when everything did not go smoothly for them after their conversion.

I did not then and do not now believe it is wrong to test and examine what Christians may practice. I never felt that we should not have some discernment about the Christian world around us. To this day I endeavor to test everything but in a right spirit.

Consider a few verses:
Phil 1:9, And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment,

1 Thess 5:21-22, But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

Rev 2:2, 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot endure evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;

I have noticed that some on the forums believe if you have a bad report to give regarding the LSM/LC then you have a free pass from any checks. Reminds me of the LSM boys and their quick attack on any word of discouragement regarding their new way or beloved office or dear minister of the age. NO CHECKS OR EXAMINATION OF THEIR REPORTS ALLOWED.

In a like manner, I have noticed that others in their reaction to the abusive language from WL regarding our brothers in Christianity seem to take the position that all is well in Mudville even if Casey has struck out.

A final comment: I have read the term here judgaholic. Pretty clever on the part of who ever came up with it. The Lord said, Matt 7:1, Judge not, that ye be not judged.

I have also read about checking the fruit of WL and those in the LSM/LC and applying John the Baptist's words to the Pharisees and Sadducees, Matt 3:8-11, "Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; 9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves,' We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 10 "And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. NASB

Lord save us from being judgaholics and from being excessive fruit inspectors and axe wielders’.

I am anxiously awaiting some good answers to my questions.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple.

John 8:31-32, Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. "
NASB

Hope

01-01-2009, 12:15 PM

Right, but I guess I would ask why such "practice" requires the existence of all the trappings of traditional Christian religious worship - membership rolls, clerical workers, meeting halls, etc. Moreover, even if it does require them, shouldn't they be a mere incident of meeting in oneness rather than a goal for an eventual formal organizational system? Talking about who is the right eldership has always seemed like a serious problem of putting the cart before the horse in these discussions.

Thank you YP0534,

Acts 14:23 shows churches were already there and recognized as such before any elders were appointed. Elders are not the issue. Elders do not a church make.

There were a few LSMers in Chapel Hill, NC where I lived in 1989. I told them to their faces that they were a sect and a division. I challenged them on their notions of oneness and I took the position that our oneness was in Christ alone and had nothing to do with our oneness with an apostle or his work. They declared that our oneness was based on our oneness with "THE APOSTLE." They further let me know that oneness with the Apostle meant supporting the current work and burden of the apostle. You could not just be neutral or passive. If you were, that was an undermining of the work. In addition, they informed me that they had written a letter to WL informing him that I was not one with the ministry and not supporting the new way. They planned to deliver it to him at the spring conference in Cleveland. With that we shook hands and parted ways.

I called my best friend, Don Looper, after this encounter. He told me I had made a mistake and should have moved to another town. Our conversation turned to the matter of Deputy Authority. For Don Looper, it was all about Deputy Authority. The matter of one church one city never came up. He never contacted me again. I did get up with him 11 years later on my initiative. I was in San Antonio on business and drove up to see him. He received me for the afternoon but no hospitality was offered. I stayed in a motel.

Within a few days after the encounter with the NC LSMers, I received a call from Titus Chu. He had somehow heard of our problems and what was about to transpire. He invited me to come to Cleveland and stay with him and he would have me sit next to WL during the meetings. Then, these few would not dare do anything against me.

Of course I did not go to Cleveland. But I did lose my relationship with most of the brothers in Texas and all the brothers in the Ohio area for nearly 15 years. But all is forgiven. It was forgiven then as well as now. Based on what those brothers held in their conscience they were between a rock and hard place.

Throughout 1989 and 1990, I waited to see how all would come down. From several sources I was informed that WL had asked on several occasions if someone would visit me to rescue me. He had told the brothers that “Don is the purest brother in the recovery.” I have no idea why he thought that but it seems he did. Finally, he charged Benson directly to go and see me. (There were little birds in the room at that time that would call me.) Within a few days I received a letter from Benson. This was the first letter ever from Benson. He included a check for $500. This was another first, but very much appreciated. Since I had severed my relationship with the LSM etc., I had stayed about one week away from bankruptcy and living on the street. I thanked him for the financial help but it never worked out for us to get together.

The content of his letter and my reply is another story for another time. I will just say this. In his letter, he never brought us “local church” but only wrote of WL and the glorious work that was taking place.

The model of the city church was of no consequence to the LSM cadre. They were all about persons and personalities and power struggles. Thus, I have continued to point to the twin dangers of “Deputy Authority” and “the Work.” In my experience with them from 1974 on, it was not about one church one city or the correct set of elders but all about “the Apostle,” “the Ministry,” “the Work,” “the Flow,” “the Coordination,” “the Oneness,” etc.etc. To quote by beloved brother Dan Towle, “Don you and I cannot be one unless you are one with Max.” On another occasion he stated, “We have a middle management problem,” when referring to local elders. He saw the critical entity as “the Work,” the “we” above and the elders were the middle managers for the Work. Believe me I have pages and pages I could write along this line and quote upon quote. Trust me. THE LSM IS NOT ABOUT THE MODEL OF ONE CHURCH ONE CITY. To find this being taught there, you will need to go deep into the remote stacks and dust off a volume of forgotten lore.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple.
John 8:31-32, Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. "
NASB

TLFisher

01-01-2009, 12:51 PM

THE LSM IS NOT ABOUT THE MODEL OF ONE CHURCH ONE CITY. To find this being taught there, you will need to go deep into the remote stacks and dust off a volume of forgotten lore.

Don, your words are raising eyebrows. However where are you going with the comment "THE LSM IS NOT ABOUT THE MODEL OF ONE CHURCH ONE CITY"?

Here's my take, a locality can strive to live the model of "One Church One City". If a given locality doesn't recieve LSM publications, there is no desire for LSM to recognize that given locality as a local church. My point is LSM is about LSM. For LSM to function as a business entity, LSM requires the financial support of churches that recieve LSM as their ministry publication.
Local churches can have the Lord's Table and have a Lord's Day service without needing LSM. There is always the Bible.

Terry

UntoHim

01-01-2009, 02:25 PM

But is there any need to practically practice a spiritual reality? “Practically practice”? Say that three time real fast. I take it that this is at least slightly rhetorical?
Firstly, I think we may encounter some resisting and frustration among us on what constitutes “a spiritual reality”. Secondly, one man’s “practically practice” may be another man’s “religious traditions”. To put a little finer point on this – when we come together as Christians, what is it that makes us “one”. Why should I come and meet with you? Why should I not meet with the other fine and outstanding Christian group a couple of miles down the path? Furthermore, why are you not meeting with that fine and outstanding Christian group in the first place? I think yu’all see me working here….

Again, I would bring up the highly hypothetical situation of the scripture writing apostles being dropped into any large, 21st Century city. Where would they go to meet with “the church in Anytown”? No need to raise your hand and shout the answer… I know what you are thinking already… MY CHURCH! My Church! Everybody is going to say my church. I would surely love to have Peter, Paul, John and all the others come to my church. Don’t worry, we can find a few extra chairs. Here’s the rub though…. I would hope that they would approve of the way that we “practically practice” the “spiritual realities” in my church. I would hope that they like the worship songs we sing…I hope we don’t sing too many of them…or too few…or too loud….or too soft. I hope the teaching pastor/elder does not use too few passages from Paul’s writings…or too few from Peter or John’s….or too many….

“I have concluded that the posters here have agreed that the LSM/LC got it wrong”… well let me put this another way…. “The real problems came when Lee and his followers claim that they were the only ones who got it right, and everybody else was wrong”. Witness Lee and his followers created yet another division in the Body of Christ by insisting on “practically practicing” his brand of the Local Church. He called it “the vision of the church”. He called it “the church-life”. He called it “the Lord’s Recovery”. He called it “The Church”. Now, many of Witness Lee’s followers still call the religious system he invented all these great and glorious names. Yet aren’t they only exercising their right to practically practice a spiritual reality? Right?

Opps, that was a really long and convoluted answer to your first question. Sorry bout that.

Second Question:
Why did Paul in his first letter to Corinth mention division three times? Apparently the Corinthians had a problem with division. There was also a problem of gross sin among them, which is why he urged them to remove the sinful person from among them – he did not want them to be “one” with this sinful person, for this was polluting the whole church. They also had a problem of listening to false teachers. He warned them that when he came that he would “find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power” (1Cor 4:19) Only the real Words of God are powerful – false teachings are weak and powerless. Again, I would point out that according to the apostle Paul, the only legitimate reasons for Christians to separate themselves from other Christians are gross sin and false teachings.

You quoted 1 Cor 1:18: “I hear that divisions exist among you”….but you left out the next verse which completes the apostle’s thought here - verse 19: “For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you”. What did Paul mean here by “approved”? I would say that when taken in context of his letters to the Corinthians, approved means being approved in practice and teaching. If the elders and prominent members there in Corinth continued to allow that sinful brother/sister to remain among them and continued to allow false teachers to wield influence, I do not think he would have had a problem with some breaking away, and then he would surely considered those saints as “approved”, even though they divided from the church. Of course that would have been the most drastic and damaging scenario, and we know from the second letter that things apparently got straightened out with that sinful brother/sister.

Hope, you have stated you have “real problems” with certain Christians…. Fine, no problemo! Nobody is forcing you to agree and/or approve of what they say or do, much less meet with them. Sorry to bring this up, but this was/is one of the major problems with the Local Church – one was/is virtually forced to swallow all sorts of things and stay put, no matter what. That is NOT practical oneness – that is forced behavior and forced oneness, and it is this very kind of dynamic that gets groups placed in the “cult” category. Admittedly, some of this is a culture issue. Forcing people to stay where they do not feel comfortable, or feel that they are not in a healthy situation for themselves or their family, may very well have been acceptable in early 20th Century China or in mid-20th Century Taiwan, but it really flies in the face of most individualistic, freedom loving Westerners. Again, sorry for the long answer, but I wanted to spit out my view of the “practical practice of a spiritual reality”.

Hope

01-01-2009, 03:47 PM

Don, your words are raising eyebrows. However where are you going with the comment "THE LSM IS NOT ABOUT THE MODEL OF ONE CHURCH ONE CITY"?

Here's my take, a locality can strive to live the model of "One Church One City". If a given locality doesn't recieve LSM publications, there is no desire for LSM to recognize that given locality as a local church. My point is LSM is about LSM. For LSM to function as a business entity, LSM requires the financial support of churches that recieve LSM as their ministry publication.
Local churches can have the Lord's Table and have a Lord's Day service without needing LSM. There is always the Bible.

Terry

Hello Terry,

Some in the LSM were all about the business. Philip Lee was in it for the money and saw it as a business.

Benson Phillips sees the LSM as the move of God on the earth today. And he has been called to head it up. He also likes to build meeting halls and head up projects.

Others see the LSM as their opportunity to be something or be a part of a larger entity.

The leadership has no passion around the practice of the church life, Body Life, assembly life or any of the terms used to describe believers being built up together and Christ being expressed through the many functions of the various members of the one Body of Christ. They stopped speaking of these matters around the time of the move to Anaheim. Of course many of the saints who had been together contnued to have this desire but they were eventually buried or excluded by the LSM cadre and their faithful followers.

It is too true that they are divisive and thus any teaching they embrace will and can be used to divide including the teaching regarding the church in the city.

By the way, what am I saying that is raising eyebrows?

Hope, Don Rutledge

Ohio

01-01-2009, 04:17 PM

The problem with the LC model was not with the failure of human nature, the problem was with the model itself. It was systemic. Retreating into spiritual generalities of things you think you see in the Bible does not help at all. You need to propose a model that works.

I'm still thinking this "oneness paradigm" through. Personally I find it almost impossible to use the LC model of "dots and circles representing believers in the city." The model forces the believers to either "be the ones" or find those who are. The dangers just abound once the diagram is drawn up, but those are the original concepts of oneness presented by WN, hence an impossible dilemma exists.

Several years ago, when our LC became no more acceptable to my family to serve the Lord, and viewing a "battle" looming on the horizon over the matter of publications, I sold my house by the meeting hall in "the city" and move to a surrounding suburb. That was a way for us to visit other congregations, and not bear the inner turmoil of "being divisive" or meeting "in division."

Oregon

01-01-2009, 05:05 PM

Happy New Year!

Some of you have already split from the LSM-led elders in your city, and so produced a division.

There is no LSM or any other kind of "local" church in the city I live in Igzy so I haven't created another division. All I am saying is that there is truth in the Word and I want to adhere to it and not explain it away somehow.

Hope

01-01-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote from Oregon.
All the believers in any locality being the one body should not be just a spiritual reality but should be practiced as such.
________________________________________
My question Unto referred to.
But is there any need to practically practice a spiritual reality?

Unto, I was asking a question based on the quote from Oregon.

I also recognize that I do put out phrases and thoughts that are not always that clear. Unfortunately I think that is a weakness of trying to communicate by a blog. But it is certainly better than any alternative other than being face to face. Thank you for your response.

Let me help you out here. Let us assume that the 12th chapter of Romans is real. Do you believe, Rom 12:3, God has allotted to each a measure of faith. I am assured that you do. Then how about Rom 12:4, For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function. So there is a spiritual reality that each believer has a measure of faith. Then based on that spiritual fact each member has a function and the functions differ. If this is true (and it is), is there anything wrong with believers seeking to practically recognize the measure in each member and encourage all to function according to their particular function. Or is it enough to just let well enough alone and go with the current situation as it is and trust that everyone has a good heart and do not make waves.

“Practically practice”? Say that three time real fast. I take it that this is at least slightly rhetorical?
Firstly, I think we may encounter some resisting and frustration among us on what constitutes “a spiritual reality”. Secondly, one man’s “practically practice” may be another man’s “religious traditions”. To put a little finer point on this – when we come together as Christians, what is it that makes us “one”. Why should I come and meet with you? Why should I not meet with the other fine and outstanding Christian group a couple of miles down the path? Furthermore, why are you not meeting with that fine and outstanding Christian group in the first place? I think yu’all see me working here….

I like all the above questions. They should be asked! To come up with answers would require some serious prayer, scripture searching and honest self examination.

Again, I would bring up the highly hypothetical situation of the scripture writing apostles being dropped into any large, 21st Century city. Where would they go to meet with “the church in Anytown”? No need to raise your hand and shout the answer… I know what you are thinking already… MY CHURCH! My Church! Everybody is going to say my church. I would surely love to have Peter, Paul, John and all the others come to my church. Don’t worry, we can find a few extra chairs. Here’s the rub though…. I would hope that they would approve of the way that we “practically practice” the “spiritual realities” in my church. I would hope that they like the worship songs we sing…I hope we don’t sing too many of them…or too few…or too loud….or too soft. I hope the teaching pastor/elder does not use too few passages from Paul’s writings…or too few from Peter or John’s….or too many….….

I am sure that the apostles would be more than a little befuddled. How could they have ever anticipated the situation of 21th century American Christianity?

… well let me put this another way…. “The real problems came when Lee and his followers claim that they were the only ones who got it right, and everybody else was wrong”. Witness Lee and his followers created yet another division in the Body of Christ by insisting on “practically practicing” his brand of the Local Church. He called it “the vision of the church”. He called it “the church-life”. He called it “the Lord’s Recovery”. He called it “The Church”. Now, many of Witness Lee’s followers still call the religious system he invented all these great and glorious names. Yet aren’t they only exercising their right to practically practice a spiritual reality? Right?….….

Not exactly. They are practicing something but so are the Roman Catholics. The problem with the Catholics is not that they are practicing something but they have it wrong. I once heard the Pope himself in Saint Peters Basilica give an excellent message on the one Body of Christ from Ephesians. His words were very good but everything else was off. Many of the posters say that the LSM has declared they want to practice oneness but they have actually created more division. AND I AGREE!!! My point is that to seek to practice a practical oneness with all believers is not the problem but the problem is what the LSM has practiced under the name of oneness.

Second Question:

Apparently the Corinthians had a problem with division. There was also a problem of gross sin among them, which is why he urged them to remove the sinful person from among them – he did not want them to be “one” with this sinful person, for this was polluting the whole church. They also had a problem of listening to false teachers. He warned them that when he came that he would “find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power” (1Cor 4:19) Only the real Words of God are powerful – false teachings are weak and powerless. Again, I would point out that according to the apostle Paul, [U]the only legitimate reasons for Christians to separate themselves from other Christians are gross sin and false teachings.

I like the last sentence of this paragraph. You are right on.

You quoted 1 Cor 1:18: “I hear that divisions exist among you”….but you left out the next verse which completes the apostle’s thought here - verse 19: “For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you”. What did Paul mean here by “approved”? I would say that when taken in context of his letters to the Corinthians, approved means being approved in practice and teaching. If the elders and prominent members there in Corinth continued to allow that sinful brother/sister to remain among them and continued to allow false teachers to wield influence, I do not think he would have had a problem with some breaking away, and then he would surely considered those saints as “approved”, even though they divided from the church. Of course that would have been the most drastic and damaging scenario, and we know from the second letter that things apparently got straightened out with that sinful brother/sister.

Thank you for bringing out verse 19 and the reference to some being approved. Several posts ago I asked about this matter of some being approved. There was a flurry of posts which seemed to be saying we should not worry about the condition of Christianity around us. Maybe I was at that time getting the message wrong but I do agree that we are not called to just put up with anything or any condition but can legitimately seek to be “those who are approved.”

Hope, you have stated you have “real problems” with certain Christians…. Fine, no problemo! Nobody is forcing you to agree and/or approve of what they say or do, much less meet with them. Sorry to bring this up, but this was/is one of the major problems with the Local Church – one was/is virtually forced to swallow all sorts of things and stay put, no matter what. That is NOT practical oneness – that is forced behavior and forced oneness, and it is this very kind of dynamic that gets groups placed in the “cult” category. Admittedly, some of this is a culture issue. Forcing people to stay where they do not feel comfortable, or feel that they are not in a healthy situation for themselves or their family, may very well have been acceptable in early 20th Century China or in mid-20th Century Taiwan, but it really flies in the face of most individualistic, freedom loving Westerners. Again, sorry for the long answer, but I wanted to spit out my view of the “practical practice of a spiritual reality”.

Forget what was okay in 20th Century China or the freedom loving West. We need to have discernment. The Church in Ephesus, in Revelation chapter two, was commended for testing apostles and rejecting the false ones. I should have used my discernment when meeting with the LSM/LC. I can say that I was not driven out but eventually used my discernment and the plain scriptures to follow the Lord away from that organization. I did not follow my freedom loving western culture.

Unto, again thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Hope, Don Rutledge

TLFisher

01-01-2009, 05:37 PM

By the way, what am I saying that is raising eyebrows?

"Of course I did not go to Cleveland. But I did lose my relationship with most of the brothers in Texas and all the brothers in the Ohio area for nearly 15 years. But all is forgiven. It was forgiven then as well as now. Based on what those brothers held in their conscience they were between a rock and hard place."

Testimonies such as yours is touching and heart warming. It is good to learn reports of relationships forgiven in the past as it is present time. Too often negative reports are given of office improprieties or of "the rebellious ones". Why not more positive reports?

Terry

AndPeter

01-01-2009, 06:11 PM

Thank you for bringing out verse 19 and the reference to some being approved. Several posts ago I asked about this matter of some being approved. There was a flurry of posts which seemed to be saying we should not worry about the condition of Christianity around us. Maybe I was at that time getting the message wrong but I do agree that we are not called to just put up with anything or any condition but can legitimately seek to be “those who are approved.”

Hope, Don Rutledge

When the church in Toronto revised its corporate bylaws in 2007 (needed for our interface with the governing bodies in Ontario) we had the leading among the brothers to include in the bylaws the thought that the church would decide whose its apostles were. We used Rev 2:2 as a basis for this inclusion. Here is the exact text.

ARTICLE 10 APOSTLES
10.1 Meaning in Context of These By-laws
In the context of this By-law, “APOSTLE” means a person who substantially and directly was and continues to be involved through the person’s work in Toronto in enlarging and developing the church in Toronto and incorporated as “The Church of the Torontonians”, as confirmed from time to time by ELDERS’ DETERMINATION.

10.2 Recognition of APOSTLES
The ELDERS may from time to time by ELDERS’ DETERMINATION recognize
what person or persons shall be deemed to be an APOSTLE for The Church of the Torontonians.

As you might expect there was much flak thrown from Anaheim as a result of this clause in the by-law.

The complete bylaws can be found at

http://www.thechurchintoronto.ca/cit/r/cit/news/load.home

Steve P.

Indiana

01-01-2009, 11:27 PM

I have not been able to keep up with this thread, but in reading the following post, my concept of this brother Igzy will never be the same. He lands punch after punch after punch, and takes more time and thoughtfulness to explain himself, from the heart, and where he is coming from, than I myself had been hearing from him. Oh! the points he makes are precious. His post follows:

*There is nothing wrong with being and praying for oneness. But I think we need to be careful about making oneness our mission. It seems to me that can be a distraction. The Lord commissioned us to disciple the nations, to me that means leading people to the Lord and helping them grow.

***Someone pointed out, rightly, that the Lord never commissioned us to build the church. He said he would do that. What he and the NT writers told us to do is to build up each other. There is a subtle but important difference there. Building up others focuses on people. But building up the church can lead to focusing on an abstract idea or institution. This is exactly what happened in the LC. "The church" became the mission. But "the church" wasn't people, it was an ideal.

*The two great commandments--love God, love people--tell us plainly where the focus of our hearts should be. When we start getting focused on some ideal, "the church," "oneness," "sanctification," "bringing the Lord back," "the consummation of the ages," "the heavenly vision," whatever, people always tend to become means to the end of that vision, and become expendable. This, too, happened in the LC.

***People are never a means to an end. They are the end. They are our mission. If we love God and love people, oneness will not be a problem. You think "practical oneness" deals with your flesh? Try practically loving every single person you meet.

*Come to mention, what exactly does "practical oneness" mean? It's a very loaded term, with a lot of LC baggage attached to it. On the other hand, surely Christian oneness should be visible. The Lord prayed that oneness would help the world believe. But what does real oneness look like? Does it mean one set of elders and lockstep Christians. I don't think the Bible tells us that.

*The pastor of our church meets with and prays with about 60 pastors from our city on a regular basis. They pray for each other and for the Lord's impact in the city. What will this lead to? I don't know, but I know it shows that the Lord is leading them.

*So, concerning the "dreary" option of simply settling for a "denomination" or "free group" (oh, that ingeniously derogatory LC nomenclature), with a pew, a musty hymnal and a weekly bulletin? Cheer up. The fact is, folks, the Lord is working powerfully in Christian groups.

*And guess what? You think you've got something to teach them? Guess again. You are likely to find out you are the one with a lot to learn. I did. Once I got humbled off my LC high horse (still a work in progress) I saw how I had almost completely missed the simple reality of loving God and loving people, and I entered into a completely new phase of my Christian life.

*Oddly, things like "being saturated with the divine nature" don't enter my mind much anymore, when just a few months ago I still thought that kind of thing was really profound. But, you know, that stuff sounds real deep, but it's really not. You know what is really deep? Having a genuine relationship with God and/or another person. That's where the real and satisfying depth is. I thank God He showed me that.

YP0534

01-02-2009, 02:44 AM

Forget what was okay in 20th Century China or the freedom loving West. We need to have discernment. The Church in Ephesus, in Revelation chapter two, was commended for testing apostles and rejecting the false ones. I should have used my discernment when meeting with the LSM/LC. I can say that I was not driven out but eventually used my discernment and the plain scriptures to follow the Lord away from that organization. I did not follow my freedom loving western culture.

Hope?

This is the second time in this post that your response suggests to me that the situation under a state-church might be different. So, suppose we're in post-Reformation England and subject to the see of Canterbury. Or even in the hills of Albi in the 12th century.

Care to address that?

I follow you that the reality of the situation might be different from America where anyone can start a new religion. Also different from a white field ripe for a nativist movement.

But a simple reference to a Biblical context doesn't really solve the problem in that what we are discussing at the end of the day is the Biblical context, right? Yes, Ephesus was praised for exercising discernment in receiving those who might attempt to exercise teaching (or even "deputy"?) authority over them, but that is precisely why we are discussing these matters instead of being an answer about what to do about them. You kind of take premise as proof here, if you see what I mean.

You previously quoted 1 Cor. 11:19, as you said.

We have a tough problem. Paul was very open in his first letter to Corinth. There was division there and he condemned it. In chapter 11 he declares, 1 Cor 11:18-20, For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you. NASB

We should seek to be those who are approved? Does this desire make someone divisive? Sometimes it seems you are contending that if you are concerned about division then you are by default divisive. I Corinthians is very clear. Those who declared “I am of Christ” were guilty of division just as those who declared “I am of Paul.” Taking the position “I am it”, “We four and no more are it.” Of course that should be condemned as divisive. How to have a positive testimony of the oneness of the Body of Christ and not be part of the “I am of Christ” sect is the dilemma.

Thus, please give some attention to how we should address the problem of division.

However, the flurry of activity following that post was mostly about one church in a city vs. many churches in a city. (Also, my posting in response to yours was edited for brevity by an admin and I believe a few other posts were as well, which seems to have unintentionally had the effect of influencing the focus of that discourse.) We then had a number of posts to say essentially that our preference alone cannot win the day but that the Lord clearly has a role even for those who operate within a denominational system (plus a nod to the fact that the doctrine of locality is not presented in scripture as a prescriptive edict.) And then we got right back to the whole issue of the practicality of one church in a city.

So, on the one hand, you are correct that the matter of who might be "approved" (and HOW) has not yet been explored, but neither really has there been a response concerning the underlying point about the practicality of one church in a city. And in your most recent post, you have essentially said, well, look at Ephesus, the one church in that city, for guidance. So now I'm saying, well, I started off looking at Ephesus (where I believe I saw Prisca and Aquilla and the assembly in their house) but when it came to dealing with the false apostles (who probably came from Jerusalem) I got stumped. They come and say they have whatever claim of authority and therefore know best how we should go on here in Ephesus. I'm not buying it but my brothers over there have bought it and now they all want me to be circumcised or else they won't fellowship with me any longer, denouncing me as unclean and deceived and a false teacher.

What shall we do in Ephesus, Hope?

Or, as I suggest, what shall we do in England or in Albi?

I don't believe there's a bright line rule that we might know when we might be required to separate from other believers to go on with the Lord. "False teachings" as a reason for separation is no help whatsoever (and neither is "gross sin" practically speaking) because those terms are not sufficiently well defined. But we must have, and throughout the history of Christianity from the Reformation forward, there must be, some sufficient scriptural ground for saying at some point, "You guys - you're not my kind of guys." Right? Sort of a chapter and verse version of the U.S. Declaration of Independence?

When, in the course of believers' events, it becomes necessary for one assembly to dissolve the uniting bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the sons of God, the separate and equal station to which the laws of God's Word and of God Himself entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of Christianity requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident...

Luther's 95 Theses are rather light on scriptural authority for separation, as I recall, but he at least was addressing the underlying problem, as I see it: it's not about a relatively pure expression of God's heart's desire in the assembly rejecting the influence of the untoward outsiders who seek to pollute it; it's a matter of dealing with the entire environment when the synagogue of Satan holds sway over you. What about the believers that Luther withdrew from? You cannot help but say he divided, right?

I hope you can catch my drift here. When I got ejected, I was cut off from the fellowship of the genuine believers whom I loved. I can read that as "they sinned, not me" and suffer the loss as from the Lord. But must we follow Stephen's pattern? (Is that what Paul meant when eventually he said he was bound to return to Jerusalem?) Or, as we remain diligent in the uniting bond of peace, is there a way to also be fully faithful to conscience? I agree that it's only theoretical and that's a problem but if we don't have a scriptural basis for this sort of following our precious Head, don't we just rebuild the Vatican in Anaheim again and again? Or the Church of England on Plymouth Rock?

If the Spirit is the engine and the Bible is the railroad track, where is the switch so that we don't merely go off the rails?

Put more simply: Suppose I meet with my family in my house on the ground of oneness. The folks across the street do the same and we meet together alternate days until one day their cousin from out of town sells them on a mandatory tongues-speaking doctrine and they insist that my family must participate or we are in error. Who rejects who is irrelevant in the final analysis, of course, but how does my house go on?

UntoHim

01-02-2009, 11:44 AM

Let me help you out here. Let us assume that the 12th chapter of Romans is real. Do you believe, Rom 12:3, God has allotted to each a measure of faith. I am assured that you do...

Could you tie this into "the ground of the church"? I must be missing something here. How does the allotment of faith have anything to do with our oneness or the ground of the church?

I am sure that the apostles would be more than a little befuddled. How could they have ever anticipated the situation of 21th century American Christianity?In short, my point is that most orthodox, evangelical Christians have every reason to believe that the original apostles would have no problem coming to meet at their church - regardless of the sign on the placard. I think they would care more about if there was biblical/spiritual worship and healthy teaching going on inside.;) Would they be enthralled with all the various "denominations"? I doubt it. I also doubt that when they found out that there were millions of Christians, just in one country alone, that all the denominations would surprise them either. Again, just a hypothetical that I threw out there.

Many of the posters say that the LSM has declared they want to practice oneness but they have actually created more division. AND I AGREE!!! My point is that to seek to practice a practical oneness with all believers is not the problem but the problem is what the LSM has practiced under the name of oneness.Ah, but here is something that we need to hash out a bit. I don't believe that Witness Lee (here in America at least) EVER really "practiced a practical oneness with all believers". Oh, with his mouth he did one thing, but from the beginning his actions indicated he was only interested in drawing men after himself. Now, it took him a good long while, but he eventually got what he was after. I think it is painfully obvious now that when Witness Lee talked about "the ground of the church" he really and truly meant a group of people that follow his person and his work. Now, in early days in Mainland China, I think Watchman Nee "practiced a practical oneness with all believers", but it got corrupted as well.

The bottom line here is that "one church - one city" or "the ground" is usually used as a smokescreen for abuse. It has happened time and time again throughout church history. Heck, even the Roman Catholics practice this kind of "oneness". Using fancy-shmancy (albeit non-biblical) terms such as "the ground" etc don't really make much difference. The Word says that we are "one body", "baptized into one Spirit", in God's eyes we are one. Now, how does this oneness work itself out "practically"? Well, that's a tough one. Let's keep at it.

There was a flurry of posts which seemed to be saying we should not worry about the condition of Christianity around us...Actually I don't think anybody is saying that "we should not worry about the condition of Christianity around us"... the rub comes in just WHAT do we do about it? Do we just huddle up in our individual meeting places and call all other Christians "poor, blind, dead, Christless" and such (like we did in the Local Church) or do we actually get off our derrieres and practice a practical oneness with other Christians. What is practical? Gee, I dunno...maybe preaching the gospel with them, worship with them, encourage those who are seeking to spread the gospel throughout the world, support ministries to the various needs in our community. These are just a few things.
Forget what was okay in 20th Century China or the freedom loving West. We need to have discernment. Discernment does not take place in a vacuum - what I was getting at was comparing and contrasting our knowledge and inward spiritual discernment with the realities around us. For example, I don't think our discernment should be totally detached from culture around us. We have our Bible. We have our God-given conscience. We have the Holy Spirit. We also have eyes and ears and the benefit of learning from history. ALL these things figure into our discernment I believe.

Hope

01-02-2009, 12:35 PM

Dear Brother YPO534,

You are obviously thinking and seeking to find a more perfect way. Too bad I do not have the privilege of knowing you and being able to fellowship face to face. I am sure you could stimulate me to more love for Christ.

It is very instructive to study church history and learn from those days. What would I have done had I been living in post reformation England or the hills of Albi? I simply have no answer. I am living today in the USA. I must work through things in the here and now. I do not have the answer for the believers of that era and I hesitate to take the position of their advisor or judge.

The New Testament does not serve well as a manual. It is not a book of operation. We Americans are trained to plan our work and to work our plan. Rick Warren’s book “The Purpose Driven Church” matches the way we think. He takes his approach right out of modern American Business. He states that the senior pastor is like the CEO. Many like this approach as we are success oriented and want to see our church be a successful organization and do much good for society and the kingdom of God. I am sure that 98% of their motives are good. I own and run a business. I want it to be successful and do a lot of good for my clients. Do we always achieve our objectives? Of course not but we try.

There has been a lot of discussion about what model can work in today’s world. The New Testament has been discussed from the perspective of what is prescriptive and what is only descriptive. I would say there is very little other than the basic facts of the faith that is prescriptive. Such as, Jesus was the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary. He lived a sinless life and died a redemptive death on the cross. He rose from the dead and ascended to the heavens and sits on the right hand of God the Father. He will return in glory and receive all who have believed in Him. They will dwell with Him forever. There are some other truths regarding the three persons of the Godhead and the nature of the believers. Such as we are the Body of Christ and members in particular and members of one another etc. (I do not claim this short list is inclusive but is only intended to be illustrative.)

These kind of prescriptive matters apply rigidly to all time in all places. We cannot compromise on them. The fact that Jesus died for our sins is true in post reformation England and in 21th century America.

Now the details of the Christian life and the church practice are not so easily nailed down. How we should react to different conditions are not prescribed. We do know that there were prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch. We know that at least once they were together ministering to the Lord and fasting. We know there were five. It seems that none were from Antioch. We do not have any details regarding what “ministering to the Lord” consisted of. We know the Holy Spirit spoke to them but we have no details of exactly what is the procedure for having the Holy Spirit speak. We do not know who the elders were in the church at Antioch. If fact, we do not even know if there were any elders in the church at Antioch. Yet we are told that the believers were first called Christians in Antioch.

Another example of the prescriptive vs descriptive dilemna is found in Revelation chapters 1-3. How about the mystery of the seven stars? We know the seven stars are the messengers of the churches. How about more details than just that they are in the right hand of the Son of Man who is walking in the midst of the seven golden lampstands which are the seven churches. I would like some better prescriptive details! What are we to do?

I can never forget Watchman Nee's warning in his foreword of “The Normal Christian Church Life,” aka “Concerning our Mission.” He declared that he feared those who would take the book as a manual. I fear those who would take “one church-one city” as a model or as an anti-model.

I am very happy that this forum has moved in the direction of many personal testimonies of the personal pursuits of following the Lord and seeking to live the Christian life and also of the various posters desire to relate to the members of the Body of Christ in a proper way that would bring glory to the head, Christ and be a building up to the believers. I wonder why none seem to have the exact prescriptive model. I have not seen any destroy the notion that the church in the city is at least a descriptive model you can find in the New Testament record. I have seen plenty of discussion that the LSM/LC version of the church in the city is a joke. I contend that it is nothing but a relic from their past and has no more to do with their current practice than zebras and lions.

While I seek to be kind and express the love of Christ to each and every believer I meet, I am not one who desires to tolerate. Toleration is not longsuffering. We must know the difference. I have said good-bye to more than just the LSM/LC. Some practices and persons just cannot be tolerated. (Please read, Revelation chapter two.)

In conclusion for this post, all I can say is we all must individually give an account to the Lord for how we live and practice in our own particular set of circumstances. Yet there are certainly absolutes we should not violate. There is a high calling we should strive to attain. I want to be an approved follower of the Lamb. To get into just the above few sentences would require hours and hours of fellowship. I am up for it. How about a retreat to the mountains of NC or the coast?

Hope, Don Rutledge

A believer who is seeking to be a true disciple.

John 8:31-32, Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. "

Hope

01-02-2009, 12:46 PM

Brother Unto,

A quote from your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hope
Let me help you out here. Let us assume that the 12th chapter of Romans is real. Do you believe, Rom 12:3, God has allotted to each a measure of faith. I am assured that you do...

Could you tie this into "the ground of the church"? I must be missing something here. How does the allotment of faith have anything to do with our oneness or the ground of the church?

I was addressing your question about how can you have a practical practice of a spiritual reality. I was attempting to give an illustration which would be clear and not in any way controversial. I guess I did not do the job. Sorry.

The teaching of the ground of the church was for the practice of the reality that the Body of Christ, the Church is one. It is one administratively on a local level not on a universal or regional level.

Hope, Don Rutledge

YP0534

01-02-2009, 04:46 PM

I can never forget Watchman Nee's warning in his foreword of “The Normal Christian Church Life,” aka “Concerning our Mission.” He declared that he feared those who would take the book as a manual. I fear those who would take “one church-one city” as a model or as an anti-model.

Yeah, I guess I'm not aware of any real help on the problem of division either.

I just mentioned certain historical contexts to try to help limit the complicating factors as we discussed some of the issues.

I suppose it's possible that there is simply no doctrine which can substitute for the reality of Christ. :rolleyes:

Hope

01-02-2009, 07:27 PM

Yeah, I guess I'm not aware of any real help on the problem of division either.

I just mentioned certain historical contexts to try to help limit the complicating factors as we discussed some of the issues.

I suppose it's possible that there is simply no doctrine which can substitute for the reality of Christ. :rolleyes:

You could be right on.

Any practice or teaching without the reality of Christ is vainity and empty.

Hope, Don Rutledge

Gubei

01-03-2009, 02:33 AM

Dear Gubei,
I prefer the Lord’s own advice to mine. That is to Love God and our neighbor. I prefer the advice of Paul that we would serve in S/spirit not in letter...

Dear Hope,

Thanks a lot. I want to love others by the love of God.

Personally, I am passing through some hard times in my life these days. I've never waited for the second coming of the Lord more than now during my Christian life. I'm really wondering what our Lord is like. Even though we know Him through the records in the Bible and His indwelling Spirit, we won't fully know him until He comes back.

Gubei

Gubei

01-03-2009, 04:49 AM

The blue is what Igzy wrote.

1. There is a pattern of city churches in the NT, but it is not perfect. There is no evidence that the house churches mentioned were city churches. So extrapolating a commandment from an imperfect pattern is folly.

To begin with, the ground of locality does not extrapolating a commandment. It is repeated presumption of Igzy that the ground of locality FORCES (Igzy himself has used such words as “insists” or “enforces”) something. The original statement of the ground of locality is just to present the truth to others. It is the later proponents who made the errors of insisting something by taking divisive stand using the ground of locality. Despite the so many request of me, he has not distinguished between the two – truth itself and its wrong application. That’s why Igzy did not quote anything from the books of WN in his posts. He repeatedly used the wrong applications of the truth by LSM etc as evidence to oppose the truth.

Furthermore, Igzy’s model (free movement of saints between all kinds of Christian groups, probably in the preference of “community churches”) itself is contradictory to this assertion. He admits that at least there were two kinds of churches at the time of the NT – the city church and the house church. If we do not use our ability of inference – which ultimately leads us to the conclusion that the house churches in the NT is actually tantamount to the city churches at that time, the only thing we can confidently say is that there should be only two kinds of churches – the city church and the house church. But Igzy’s previous posts obviously give us the impressions that he admits all kinds of “churches.” This is what he called “imperfect” and “no evidence.”

My point is that even though I admit his right to be against the ground of locality, I cannot accept his so unfair treatments between his model and others’ model.

2. The Bible doesn't prescribe city churches, and gives evidence of non-city (house) churches. That's enough to not make an issue of it.

The same point. How come there are so many churches now except city churches and house churches? Who prescribed those? Igzy’s resort to the freedom that we have in Christ Jesus does not apply in this case, as I already explained before. To Igzy, house church is all non-city churches. Is this right conjecture?

3. To require everyone, and call everyone divisive, who does not subscribe to city churches, is a self-serving attempt to control others.
The same point. Igzy is taking the example of the wrong application of the ground of locality in order to attack the truth itself. When does the ground of locality itself require EVERYONE, and call EVERYONE divisive?

The same point. Igzy is taking the example of the wrong application of the ground of locality in order to attack the truth itself. When does the ground of locality itself require EVERYONE, and call EVERYONE divisive? To me all the denominations (meaning such names as Baptist, Methodist etc) looks "divisive", not everyone. I know there are a lot of wonderful Christians even in denominations.

4. To my observation and analysis, no working model of city churches has been proposed. Each model contains the seeds of its own destruction and ultimate divisiveness.

What is the definition of the “working model”? Even the practice of head-covering, which was so plainly introduced by Paul is controversial. There are sisters who cover their heads and others who do not cover their heads. Very simple. There are saints who accept the ground of locality and others who do not accept it. Very simple. This is the natural outcome due to agreement and disagreement on issues. If we follow Igzy, all the practices and even fundamental truths in the Bible contains the seeds of its own destruction and ultimate divisiveness. Once again, his treatment of the ground of locality is not fair compared to other practices or truths.

5. All arguments for city churches I've heard sound sanctimoniously vague. People who argue for city churches usually end up saying that "we" (What do you mean "we," Kemosabe?) somehow have to find a way to "make it work," and if we don't it's our failure. I tell you what. You pray to the Lord and ask him to give you a way to make it work. When he gives you an answer, let me know. I'll be all ears. I've been asking on this thread and others over and over for a model that works. It's been really strange, but none of the advocates has provided one.

It is very interesting to see how Igzy deals with his model on this issue. When he evaluates the ground of locality from the view point of “working,” he assumes that all Christians should agree with this truth for the truth to be declared to be “working.” Let’s apply the same principle to his model – free movement of saints between all kinds of Christian groups. Seemingly, his model is working as long as saints freely move. But, how about in terms of his assumption he used – all Christians should agree with the truth. NOT AT ALL! This is due to his model’s peculiarity. Contrary to the ground of locality which aims for practical unity of Christians in a city, his model, to begin with, aims for “free movement” at the expense of practical unity among Christians. From the start, his model assumes a state of there being a lot of churches in a city. So, his model is really practical for free moving of saints, not for practical unity of Christians in a city.

6. The local ground teaching stumbles believers. Who knows how many precious believers are shipwrecked because the LC movement poisoned "Christianity" for them. I'll bet there are thousands who don't follow the Lord with much vigor now because someone told them they can't meet with anyone but the LC. Who wants to defend this stumbling to the Lord at the judgment seat?

He is mentioning those who are divisive with the wrong application of the ground of locality, not the truth itself.

7. The local ground teaching divides practioners from all other believers, both by its exclusive bent, and by the delusions of specialness it puts in the mind of its adherents. LCers are generally almost completely incapable of esteeming non-LCers as "better than themselves."

It depends on who you are talking about. By “almost completely,” how many LCers do you mean? Have you ever traveled outside your country to meet “almost completely” all LCers?

8. The local ground teaching restricts the Lord from moving in fresh ways. Members are not free to follow the Lord as he leads, but must get full permission from leadership. If leadership is corrupt, members must disobey the Lord to comply.

Not at all. You can follow your Lord ahead of local leadership. Once again, your assumption is that local leadership is forcing something and corrupt. Think about this. No one can force you to do something in this modern age. Leadership is leadership not by its forcing power but its exemplars. It is saints who decide if they are going to follow the leadership. Any local leadership which restricts the saints who want to follow the Lord, is not proper. That’s why I repeatedly are saying “moving position of eldership” in a city. Think about this. Even though the president of a country was elected legitimately, he can be functioning badly as president. But, we cannot deny the fact he is the president. This is the point when conflicts arise between leadership and people. But, even in democracy, the power of president is controlled by such measures as impeachment. I believe this is why Paul opened the door not to follow local leadership by saying (1Tim 5:19) 『Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.』

9. Critical problems with leadership cannot be resolved peaceably. If a "leading elder" or "apostle" goes bad, there is no mechanism for resolving the situation other than a complete breakdown of the system, which we have seen in cities like Toronto, Columbus, Mansfield, etc, etc. In these situations the sheep are scattered, and left wounded and dying, all because there was no fail-safe on leadership, all because of a fanatical adherence to an imperfect Biblical model which is not even prescribed by Scripture. So much for being as wise as serpents.

So, do you believe the reason the ministry of Paul looks like a failure was due to the ground of locality?

The saints in Toronto, Columbus, Mansfield, etc, etc are those who live in their cities. They have their right to deny any eldership or apostleship. What do you mean by “peacefully?” Any voting system where majority wins? God will reveal his will sooner or later. Let’s be patient.
Igzy’s model does not give us any peaceful method that resolves conflicts. His method is to agree to disagree. This is nothing short of avoiding conflicts by turning to other new party. That’s why we see a lot of denominations now.

10. The local ground teaching is a distraction from the real work of the Great Commission. Love God, love people--those are the two great commandments. The local ground teaching has definitely been shown be a detriment to the second. It has been shown to be easier for Christians to work together to spread the gospel and shepherd people if Christians can drop their pet doctrines (which are the source of division). The local ground is another pet doctrine which hinders the cooperation of Christians.

Igzy, the cooperation of Christians is not the target revealed in the Bible. Now your notion is very obvious to me - “Christians are divided. Let’s accept this solemn, undeniable fact. So, let’s try to find ways to cooperate, rather than seeking practical oneness.” Please try to envision an imaginary US which is divided into two – the North and the South, but still cooperating well. Do you want to call that a practical oneness among them?

Your model simply suggests that we do not need to arrive the point of practical oneness, so we should be satisfied with the current situation by allowing saints to freely move. This is not at all practical oneness any more than the EU is a one country of practical oneness.

Gubei

Oregon

01-03-2009, 05:53 AM

Any practice or teaching without the reality of Christ is vainity and empty.

Hope, Don Rutledge

This statement by Don is just extreemly important. The ground of the church....one church in a city...whatever term you want to use....it in itself does not make the church. And we all know that the bible is not about one church in one city.

It's like when we played marbles when we were kids. We drew a circle in the dirt and all put our marbles in the circle and took turns shooting at the marbles. The marbles are in the circle....but the circle itself isn't the game. It's the marbles in the circle.

Gubei

01-03-2009, 07:47 AM

Gubei,

I'm saying the pattern of the Trinity in the Bible is much clearer and plainer than the ostensive pattern of locality, evidenced by the fact that almost everyone believes in the Trinity and almost no one believes in the local ground.

It is just more evidence to discount claims of the existence of some overriding locality truth. It's not the only reason, but it certainly doesn't help your case.

Igzy,

Now you admit that Trinity and the ground of locality, both, are patterns drawn from some dscriptive verses in the Bible. I'm happy to hear this.

But, Trinity is much unclearer and less plainer than the ground of locality, as you said Trinity is somewhat vague.

I have never seen any posters here who do not understand what the ground of locality is. This means the truth is so straightforward, clear, and plain.

The reason some people reject this truth is not that they do not understand, but that they do not want to accept it.

Gubei

Gubei

01-03-2009, 07:56 AM

Right. I'd agree.

But the upshot is that the one church per city principle must be either not required or optional, otherwise why would the Lord lead me to A and you to B? Why would he lead one of us to an invalid division of the Body? If there is only one church per city then A and B cannot both be churches, otherwise there are two churches.

Igzy,

There is only one church in a city from the start to now. When A delcares that they are the church in that city, they should include all the saints in that city. Also, when B declares the same thing, they should include all the saints in that city. If they say otherwise, they are not on the right ground.

God is leading you or me into any specific group in ONE CHURCH according to his own will.

Gubei

Gubei

01-03-2009, 08:36 AM

Gubei,

The ground of locality teaching is an ironic paradox because though it is supposed to issue in oneness, by definition one cannot practice it without condemning other groups, thus it works against oneness. One can believe in head covering while receiving believers and even churches that do not believe it. But one cannot practice the local ground without invalidating every group in the city that doesn't believe it. Thus it is divisive.

You say you receive and fellowship with all Christians which don't hold the local ground. That's as you should. But how do you feel about their groups? Do you feel they are not real churches? If so, your model has proven to be divisive.

For example, I don't believe in Catholicism. Yet, I cannot say the Catholic group down the road is not a real church. The church in Thyatira was a church. I've been to Catholic services where I definitely felt the Lord presence. Call me crazy but it's true. Who am I to say others shouldn't be there if He's there?

99.9999% (at least) of people being saved in the world are being saved via groups that LCers would say are not real churches! Isn't it strange that the Lord is choosing to do such a majority of his saving work in groups LCers won't even recognize. Sounds like He recognizes them. Sounds like you and He are out of sync.

Igzy,

Your comparison is very unfair.

My comparison is as follows.

When you talk about head covering, you should focus on the matter of head covering. The fact that there are disagreements on that issue means there are conflicts.
But, head covering is not essential in our Christian life. That’s why we can accept other Christians who are holding different interpretation on this issue. So, I can fellowship with them.

When you talk about the ground of locality, you should focus on the matter of the ground of locality. The fact that there are disagreements on that issue means there are conflicts.
But, one set of elders in a city is not essential in our Christian life. That’s why we can accept other Christians who are holding different interpretation on this issue. So, I can fellowship with them.

And you wrote.
“But how do you feel about their groups? Do you feel they are not real churches? If so, your model has proven to be divisive.”

They are not the church according to the picture in the NT. But they (meaning the saints) are the part of the church in that city. In this sense, they are very real.

And you wrote.
“For example, I don't believe in Catholicism. Yet, I cannot say the Catholic group down the road is not a real church. The church in Thyatira was a church. I've been to Catholic services where I definitely felt the Lord presence. Call me crazy but it's true. Who am I to say others shouldn't be there if He's there? ”

Yes, in Catholicism (or Catholic group) is our Lord. And The church in Thyatira typifies Catholicism (or Catholic group), not that the church in Thyatira (definitely a local church at that time) justify the name - Catholic Church.

And you wrote.
“99.9999% (at least) of people being saved in the world are being saved via groups that LCers would say are not real churches! Isn't it strange that the Lord is choosing to do such a majority of his saving work in groups LCers won't even recognize. Sounds like He recognizes them. Sounds like you and He are out of sync.[/QUOTE]”

Igzy, 100% of people are being saved via the local churches, which include all the saints in the world. Still, your definition of local churches is not the same with mine.

Gubei

Gubei

01-03-2009, 08:47 AM

Gubei,

Let me also say that if you genuinely receive all believers and respect all churches in a city then I have no problem with your local ground beliefs. However, if you genuinely receive and respect then the local ground belief is rather superfluous, isn't it?

Because if we all genuinely receive and respect, then real oneness has been achieved, unless you interpret oneness as marching in lockstep under one set of elders, which I most certainly don't, since the downside of such an arragement is potentially much worse, and more likely, than the upside, as history has shown again and again.

Igzy,

So, are such practices as the Lord's Table, baptism, head covering just superfluous to you? If these things are really superfluous, why did Paul ordered to repeat these?

"if we all genuinely receive and respect, then real oneness has been achieved"
why not having one set of elders AS THE RESULT?

Please rethink my position. Having one set of elders cannot be attained by forcing it. That state is just a natural outcome from genuine oneness among Christians - so fragile given human nature. That's why I regard that state as an "ideal state."

Gubei

UntoHim

01-03-2009, 09:49 AM

Gubei

01-03-2009, 09:58 AM

Dear Gubei and Oregon,

Simply put, you both have failed to prove conclusively that the house churches in the NT are city churches. And there is no way you can prove it. You can argue all you want and believe what you want, but there is no way you can conclusively show this. Thus it is unreasonable for you to expect others to accept your interpretation. So for you to call others divisive for not meeting as a city church is itself divisive.

If you cannot see this or understand at all what I'm getting at then this conversation is basically over, because you just don't get it.

Igzy,

You wrote.
"So for you to call others divisive for not meeting as a city church is itself divisive."

Please quote my words in previous posts in which I said that.

And you wrote.
"Simply put, you both have failed to prove conclusively that the house churches in the NT are city churches."

My clarification is as follows.

Philippians 1:1 『Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:』

Philippians 4:15 Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only.

The ALL THE SAINTS in Philippi is a church – city church if you will.

(Acts 14:23) 『So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.』

(Titus 1:5) 『For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you--』

So, one city – one church – one eldership.

For “house churches,”

(Rom 16:3,4,5) 『[3] Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, [4] who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. [5] Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ.』

(1Cor 16:19) 『The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.』

(Col 4:15) 『Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas and the church that is in his house.』

(Philemon 1:2) 『to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:』

Please pay attention to the fact that whenever “house churches” are mentioned, it is with juxtaposition of other churches which is obviously city churches. In case of Philemon 1:2, the key of understanding is “Archippus”

and Archippus our fellow soldier; that this Archippus was a preacher of the Gospel at Colosse is manifest from Col_4:17 wherefore the apostle styles him a fellow soldier; (Gill)

Archippus is believed to be an elder in Colosse. By juxtaposing Archippus and Philemon’s house, Paul seems to be mentioning the two churches which were under the eldership of Archippus and Philemon each.

I believe this is proper understanding of house churches. In short, at that time, due to small number of saints in a city, they were able to gather together in a house, which people intimately call a church, actually meaning the church in that city judging from the other city-church related verses.

Is it possible to use these verses related to “house churches” in order to justify such names as Methodist, Baptist, Community, etc? I do not think so. The only possibility to be taken by any one who believes city church is not the same house church is that there are two kinds of churches in the Bible – city church and house church, not that there are as many churches as we want.

I hope that any one will try conclusively to prove that the Bible give us the permission to conduct denominations.

Gubei

Gubei

01-03-2009, 10:16 AM

This is going to sound like I am picking on you Gubei (and I sort of am)

At this point Gubei, you are flooding this thread. You keep making the same points over and over again. Maybe you don't realize it, but most of us have heard these same exact arguments made in the exact same manner. Many of us heard these same arguments made before you were born. Igzy has answered most of your questions/contention in a reasonable and sound manner, yet you seem to be deaf. At this point you guys are just talking AT each other and not WITH each other...and this is mostly your fault. The dialogue between you and Igzy has ceased to be a discussion. For this most part you are just blogging now.

May I suggest you start your own blog regarding "the ground of the church" and you will be welcome to put up a link to it on this thread.

Thanks for your understanding.

UntoHim,

I have to say this.

I'm just responding to Igzy's posts. It is Igzy who first began to use a lot of posts, rather than using one or two. Everything is recorded in this site, am I right?

You wrote.
"Many of us heard these same arguments made before you were born."

So, why do you run this web-forum? I hope this is not intended to mock me.

As virtually you requested, I'm leaving.

Igzy,

I'm happy to have had such good fellowships with you. I hope our Lord be with you always.

Gubei

Oregon

01-03-2009, 01:06 PM

Igzy,

You wrote.
"So for you to call others divisive for not meeting as a city church is itself divisive."

I don't recall saying anybody was divisive. I'm simply stating what I believe the Word of God says. I quoted the verse in I Corinthians where Paul said that there should be no division in the body.

Ohio

01-04-2009, 05:57 AM

But ... shall we continue with the discussion on the "Ground of the Church?"

UntoHim

01-04-2009, 08:56 AM

People are never a means to an end. They are the end. They are our mission. If we love God and love people, oneness will not be a problem. You think "practical oneness" deals with your flesh? Try practically loving every single person you meet

This reminds me of something somebody already posted earlier:
Q: What is the most valuable thing to come out of a mine?
A: THE MINER!

Any teaching (or practice for that matter) regarding the church that does not place it's emphasis on PEOPLE is nothing but empty doctrine.
Many may remember the little hand trick game.... "here is the church, here is the steeple, open the doors and see all the people"
Ah...found it on youtube...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyZb4jRVk1I&NR=1

So, what's the most important thing to come out of an assembly?
THE ASSEMBLED! The PEOPLE.

Ok, ok this is kind of mushy and getting away from "the ground of the church". Point being...the ground of the church should always come back to the people.

Again, here is the bottom line I think:
Come to mention, what exactly does "practical oneness" mean? It's a very loaded term, with a lot of LC baggage attached to it. On the other hand, surely Christian oneness should be visible. The Lord prayed that oneness would help the world believe. But what does real oneness look like? Does it mean one set of elders and lockstep Christians. I don't think the Bible tells us that.
The pastor of our church meets with and prays with about 60 pastors from our city on a regular basis. They pray for each other and for the Lord's impact in the city. What will this lead to? I don't know, but I know it shows that the Lord is leading them. Do the Local Church Elders in this city meet with these 60 pastors?
What do you think?

OBW

01-04-2009, 12:04 PM

Would you care to comment on 1 Cor 11:19, For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you.

In particular, address “who are approved.”Don,

First, while I will eventually address this verse, I probably will not address "who are approved" in quite the way you want, although I do not think you will be disappointed.

Paul’s reference to his gifts as “irrevocable” in Rom 11:29 is an important statement. God does not give to take away. But on the other hand, we often have those who come with their own proclamation of a “gift of God” with the expectation that others will simply listen.

You are correct that within all of scripture, at some level, there is a requirement to discern among teachers, evangelists, or more rightly so-called teachers and evangelists, etc. Among those that are “so-called” are both the real deal, the frauds, and probably levels in between — those who do have a calling but have undertaken to expand their influence beyond their calling. The church was never to simply take the good with the bad and not worry about it. But in 1 Cor 3, Paul is not talking about the believers’ responsibility, but that of those who teach — who build.

When you mention 1 Cor 11:19, I find this verse to be a sort of mystery. Paul has just finished talking about men and women both as in submission to each other, and with some (at least) hint of positional superiority of men. I will not begin to take those issues apart here, even if I were able to do so. Then he starts talking about the kind of chaos that occurs at their Lord’s table meetings. Since there is some merging of a time of meal and the actual observance of the Lord’s table as we know it, it seems that Paul chides them for their inequity and lack of brotherly love for the former, then clarifies what the latter is intended to portray.

In the early part of this talk on their “table” he write two verses that speak of “divisions among you.” In the second of these two, when he says, “there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval” it is not clear if he is saying that this is rightly so, or if he is stating the obvious fact that their internal divisions are part of their own seeking to claim that this or that faction is right and superior to the others. Is Paul really saying that this rightly “must be” for God to demonstrate who is correct, or is he stating that that is what the Corinthans, whom he has already chastised for their internal divisions, are trying to to accomplish on their own? With these two terse sentences and no further explanation, it is hard to say. Instead, Paul goes right on to discuss how they run roughshod over each other. Since we typically take these as all being part of one paragraph, is it possible that rather than commending the Corinthians for getting to the bottom of their differences, he is simply stating that they think that one group essentially overpowering another, even in getting plenty to eat, is somehow proof of their superior position.

So Paul begins 1 Corinthians by pointing out the lack of superiority of one teacher over another. He has here just finished putting man in woman “in place” under God’s authority rather than man’s, and he is about to level the playing field on the gifts and even how the meetings should be run, with a centerpiece of doing all things in love.

In this context, I wonder if we have taken 11:19 out of context by making it talk about something that is essentially not what Paul is really talking about at that point. I wonder if it is really talking about there being purpose for divisions to prove what God approves. Or is he pointing back at their divisions that he has already condemned and indicating that here at the Lord’s table the problem once again rears its ugly head with some supposed purpose of seeking God’s approval. Was this verse talking about gaining God’s approval or about pointing to misguided purposes in the way they held their table meetings.

I do not pretend to say that this is the “right” way to look at this verse. But when I put it back into its context, I have a difficult time returning to the understanding that has been put forth for so many years by so many people and with which I essentially “grew up.” I have some reason to believe that we may have created something that is not there because we have ignored the context.

I appreciate your efforts to harmonize the various aspects of scripture. I believe this must be done. But while doing that, we must never gloss over the differences in the various passages that tell of the multifaceted truths. I agree that what we do with wood v gold is important even for the lowliest of believers. But 1 Cor 3 is specifically saying something about the responsibility that those who would be the teachers, elders, evangelists, etc., take on when they set out in those roles. I do not diminish everyone’s responsibility, but if we simply turn these verses to talk to us all without understanding the purpose for which they were written, we have not rightly divided the word of truth. There was a purpose for these verses and it was not to tell me — one of the simple members at IBC — that I have this increased responsibility. It was specifically to those who teach me, who turn our journey in certain directions. You may rightly apply it to me anyway. But that is not what Paul was doing.

Hope

01-04-2009, 03:34 PM

Dear brother and sisters on the forum,

I would like to share some current experience which may fit into the discussion here. In particular I have reference to practical application of spiritual reality and to the oneness of the body of Christ practically realized. Is the oneness of the Body of Christ manifested because we have an understanding of one church one city? I have also raised the matter of the headship of Christ being practically realized locally.

Last week, one of the dear ones with whom we gather passed away. He was in his middle seventies. He was saved five years ago after a miserable life as an alcoholic. He was a plain simple man but had developed a sweet relationship with young and old alike. Hardly a week passed and he did not call “Amazing Grace.” That hymn will never be the same.

Yesterday, Saturday, some of the brothers gathered, as whosoever will may gather, to seek the Lord, pray and fellowship regarding the Lord’s work among us and the meetings coming up on the morrow. During the fellowship, it was determined that we would have three sections of the gathering which was to be followed by a love feast. First we would have a memorial meeting. Then we would have the Lord’s Table and then some sharing.

The previous Friday and Saturday some fellowship had been released in a young people’s conference on Joseph and Sampson. The young people had shared some with the church of their enjoyment and realization last Lord’s Day.

The brethren who gathered yesterday felt that the burden was of the Lord for the whole church. Some were asked to be prepared to share with the whole church.

The memorial meeting began promptly at 10: A M. The church was informed as to the three parts of the meeting. The Lord’s presence was so strong during the testimonies regarding the life of the deceased brother. We were all deeply touched by the Love of God for this man and also for the Love of God for this man that was in the hearts of the saints. The memorial went on and on. Young saints and old saints, brothers and sisters, guests and family members all stood one by one and spoke of the wonderful love and compassion of Christ and what the Lord had done in our brother. The agenda went out the window. Christ, the Head, was directing things another way. The memorial ended at 12:15 P M. Then we passed the bread and the wine and dismissed for the love feast.

I was so impressed at the honor given to this seemingly weaker less honorable member. 1 Cor 12:22-25, On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body, which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our unseemly members come to have more abundant seemliness, whereas our seemly members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. NASB

Christ was the Head of the church, not the elders, the brothers, some headquarters or some agenda. Christ directed the meeting. The Oneness was manifested due to the honoring of a less gifted member. The members functioned, not due to some rote formulas but due to their love for Christ and for the dear believer for whom Christ had died.

This brother is not the only one among us who has been saved from a profligate life. We have several. When you honor these dear believers at least as much if not more than some good material that is redeemed, the oneness seems to just happen. Add an assembly that is looking directly to Christ, not a headquarters, a tradition, an agenda or elders or to the ministerial team and you have the local administration of the glorious Head, the resurrected and ascended Christ.

Any genuine believer may join in and participate. The only lines of division drawn are belief in Christ. Yet we have unbelievers as guest in nearly every Lord’s Day gathering. Just this week a person from Nepal, a Hindu, professed faith in Christ and renounced the false gods of Hinduism.

We are like those in Zephaniah chapter three. Or maybe more like 1 Corinthians chapter one. 1 Cor 1:26-28, For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are. NASB
We are the:
1. Not wise
2. Not mighty
3. Not noble
4. The foolish
5. The Weak
6. The base
7. The despised.
Yet, we do know something of a practical local church life. We are looking forward to seeing the manifestation of the One New Man more and more.

One brother read an email from Mindanoa, Phillippeans and shared photographs from the email. We rejoiced at the report of the Lord's blessing on a simple local church and their expression of gratitude for the gifts they had recently received.

After this report, a brother who cares for the offering box told how the deceased brother gave him a cash gift every month and said be sure half goes to India and half to the Phillippeans. We actually were able to see photos of poor children who were fed by the gifts of our brother and to see their parents being baptised. Glory!!!

Pray for us.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer who is seeking to be a true disciple.
John 8:31-32, Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. " NASB

YP0534

01-04-2009, 05:30 PM

In this context, I wonder if we have taken 11:19 out of context by making it talk about something that is essentially not what Paul is really talking about at that point. I wonder if it is really talking about there being purpose for divisions to prove what God approves. Or is he pointing back at their divisions that he has already condemned and indicating that here at the Lord’s table the problem once again rears its ugly head with some supposed purpose of seeking God’s approval. Was this verse talking about gaining God’s approval or about pointing to misguided purposes in the way they held their table meetings.

I apologize but this was not a very clear elucidation to me, OBW, so please forgive me if I get this wrong.

Is it your suggestion that 11:19 is essentially saying "Of course there are sects among you because everyone is vying to be most approved" or something like that?

I would say that Paul's concept concerning "approval" is well documented in the scriptures (if poorly studied and understood) and I would not presume the reading you've suggested (if you have indeed suggested it.) 2 Tim. 2:15 in particular is a strong parallel with regard to the concept of "approval" reflected in 1 Cor. 11:19.

Rom 14:18 For he that in this serves the Christ [is] acceptable to God and approved of men.

Rom 16:10 Salute Apelles, approved in Christ. Salute those who belong to Aristobulus.

2Cr 10:18 For not *he* that commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.

2Cr 13:7 But we pray to God that ye may do nothing evil; not that *we* may appear approved, but that *ye* may do what is right, and *we* be as reprobates.

1Th 2:4 but even as we have been approved of God to have the glad tidings entrusted to us, so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, who proves our hearts.

2Ti 2:15 Strive diligently to present thyself approved to God, a workman that has not to be ashamed, cutting in a straight line the word of truth.

I think it would be an excellent exercise (which I have not done and cannot fully do at present) to consider what exactly might Paul mean by "approved" (I think 2 Cor. 10:18 is particularly interesting!) but I'm not really seeing this reading I think you have suggested.

I look around this forum, in fact, and I think I can see 1 Cor. 11:19 in action from time to time.

Ohio

01-04-2009, 05:49 PM

I was so impressed at the honor given to this seemingly weaker less honorable member. 1 Cor 12:22-25, On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body, which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our unseemly members come to have more abundant seemliness, whereas our seemly members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. NASB

It truly is a remarkable thing that honoring the less comely members could display the oneness of the body of Christ! Did someone say "practical oneness?" How contrary to all the wisdom of this world. Coming out of the a different environment in the LC's, where at one time the question of the day was "can we ever honor Brother Lee too much?," it is so easy to see why we found ourselves so far off the mark.

I remember my last time of fellowship in the LC. I bore a heavy burden for the condition of the church and the many saints. The elders were explaining to me how they had "the right" to work with TC, and it was their "prerogative" to lead the church to the fellowship of TC, etc. and btw who did I think I was to say anything differently? I was the one who needed to repent.

I read Hope's post with much joy. How good it is for the Spirit of God to blow as the wind into that memorial gathering in order to bestow more abundant honor upon the brother in Christ. It was not weeks of preparation with long-winded eulogies from around the world, nay!, rather, it was the outpouring of love from both the Head and the saints. Yes, the church is truly "of God" and is also "of the saints."

After reading Hope's post, I felt this was just a "normal" meeting. The Son walking in their midst. The Father leading His children. The Spirit anointing a "new" message. There was nothing spectacular, no high theology, no works of power, no reverberating message, etc. I once was in a "normal" churchlife like this. I never saw so many answered prayers. We never knew what was going to happen in the meeting. Yes, we prepared ... but you never knew ...

What changed it all? Not the enemy. Not the world. Not sin. Not the opposition. Nothing like that. It was "the new way." It was excessive adulation to one man and his ministry. The result was slow death ending in division. We became of Lee, then we became of Chu. When conflicts came, we had to "take a stand for the truth" which was just code for "pick a side." It is hard for me not to conclude that over-honoring the gifts brings us curse and division, while honoring the weaker ones brings us much blessing and a display of oneness even the world marvels at.

Oregon

01-04-2009, 06:02 PM

That was wonderful Don. Your report on that recent memorial meeting makes me want to be there. Like Ohio shared......I remember these kinds of meetings well and desire to share in them again.

Hope

01-04-2009, 08:09 PM

Dear Ohio,

I just read your post in response to my post. Thank you my brother. Is it not amazing that we both know exactly what the other is talking about? I loved you summary of my summary. There was nothing spectacular, no high theology, no works of power, no reverberating message,…

Dear Ones, I had much, much, much rather have the Son of Man walking in the midst of the lampstand and the Spirit of God blowing where He wills than to have all that spectacular high theology. Been there, done that. Give me that fresh message “to the Church in _____” says the Son of Man.

Three weeks ago we had three Hindus attend our meeting. (One is now saved, another is very close, the third we are praying is on the way.) We did not know they would be there until minutes before the start. A brother had prepared to share something that would be for believers. So at the last moment the Lord changed the program.

A brother shared on John 3:16-17. Never have I received so much light and enlivenment from John 3:16-17. I, personally, understand much more clearly what it means for God to love the world and send His only Son and how God wants to save rather than condemn the world.

Recently we had a wonderful prodigal son experience. (By the way, we have renamed the story from Luke 15 from “the prodigal son” to “the Loving Father.”) Anyway, one of the daughters in one of our families had run away and was living a very profligate life. We all were in great anguish of soul for many months. Then one day she was back, loving the Lord and her family and the church.

Her younger brother shared through a river of tears how he had prayed for his sister every day. He shared how he was so mad at God for letting this happen to his sister. He declared that he wanted not to believe in God but he could not stop praying. Then he was just about to give up and suddenly she was back.

Recently the sister shared that she has the joy of the Lord. Before she had heard of the joy of the Lord but now she starts everyday with His joy. She is a glowing woman of Christ and a daily inspiration to the saints, her friends and now she is back in college.

Last month she gave a report in her humanities class how she had been a homeless vagabond but because of Christ, her loving family and the church she has been recovered. This semester she earned 4 As and 2 Bs. Glory, Glory!!! God is so good.

When your heart is occupied with lost souls, troubled souls and just plain ole ordinary folks and you love our Wonderful Savior, well, oneness just seems to take care of itself.

Romans chapter 15 has become a favorite. This is the chapter in Romans on the “Oneness.” Most think that chapter 14 is on oneness but it is on the Lordship of Christ and not usurping the conscience of other believers. Please read these wonderful verses: Rom 15:1-6, Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to his edification. For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached Thee fell upon Me." For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus; that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom 15:7, Wherefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. NASB

Posters, note how suddenly there is a reference to reproaches. When you seek to bear the weaknesses of those without strength they will not thank and appreciate your efforts but will reproach and rebuke you. For centuries, sinners everywhere have reproached the Lord Jesus. Only His name is a curse word. No one yells "oh Buddha" or "oh Mohammed." How many saved sinners reproached the name of Christ before they experienced Rom 2:4c, “the kindness of God leads you to repentance.”

To maintain a practical testimony of the Oneness requires perseverance for the care of those without strength and encouragement not to give up on them and to always have hope for them. My moniker is Hope. That is not just hope for me but I desire to maintain hope for all the Lord’s people regardless of any current state of defeat or struggle. It is easy to be one with some great gifted Christian leader who only brings you joy etc. But is requires the power of the Holy Spirit to be abounding in hope for a brother or sister who is without strength. Rom 15:13, Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. NASB

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple.
John 8:31-32, Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. " NASB

Hope

01-04-2009, 08:22 PM

That was wonderful Don. Your report on that recent memorial meeting makes me want to be there. Like Ohio shared......I remember these kinds of meetings well and desire to share in them again.

Dear Brother,

I am sure you will be in the joy of meeting with the saints sharing the unsearchable riches of Christ. I believe this forum is part of the Lord's work for His testimony and for a greater glory and joy. Remember Hag 2:9, 'The latter glory of this house will be greater than the former, NASB

Hope, Don Rutledge

Indiana

01-04-2009, 11:48 PM

I remember thinking when the new way began, “Either brother Lee has been given license by God to “blow past” New Testament scripture for the sake of the “Lord’s new move” on the earth, or he was ignoring 1 Cor. 12 on bestowing more abundant honor on the member that lacks that there be no division in the Body. The strong focus on the young people’s training and the gaining of good material off college campuses for “the Lord’s new move”distracted elders and would-be shepherds from the practical oneness at home, to a man and a ministry - universally.

But my thought was faint and whether WL was right or wrong, I was for the new way – door-knocking, home meetings, and lining up with a man and a ministry. This was when I was in the thick atmosphere, and thought it was right to march in lock-step in One Accord. But it wasn’t until I got knocked down and then out of the church that I could really consider honestly the devastation of the new way and its implementation. Thus, the booklet I wrote, In the Wake of the New Way. It was the most heart-felt writing, as I began to write from a devastated position, in a low state.

I was quite disturbed about church matters and could sense the Lord gently leading me and opening me to consider Paul’s speaking in his epistles on the oneness. I saw one accord all right, but not in the way of campaigns for a man and a ministry. I saw the Bible’s one accord in localities. So, I wrote with this in mind in the booklet.

I made reference in the booklet to these portions of the NT and to what Witness Lee’s writings were about them before the new way movement - teachings that now did not seem to be in sync with his One Accord teaching in his new role as the universal leader of what was fast becoming "ministry churches" under LSM domination and influence that we see well-established today.

www.makingstraightthewayofthelord.com/LoveandOneAccord.pdf

www.makingstraightthewayofthelord.com/IntheWakeoftheNewWay.pdf

TLFisher

01-05-2009, 12:11 AM

Ohio

01-05-2009, 06:33 AM

Brother Don,

What a moving story of the "Loving Father" receiving back his wayward daughter in love. Glory to God!

One time a former Cleveland FT'er CD made a comment that our heavenly Father will always bring His children to a congregation where they will be cared for. That little statement rattled my little "belief system." How could any place be better than the LC? Don't we have the richest ministry? How dare God bless some "division" in the body of Christ? Wasn't this the best place on earth?

Where were we? Where was I?

When your heart is occupied with lost souls, troubled souls and just plain ole ordinary folks and you love our Wonderful Savior, well, oneness just seems to take care of itself.
I love this little "word of wisdom." If the "main thing" is to keep the "main thing" the "main thing," then we surely missed it. By focusing on minor things like the ministry, the truth, and oneness, we missed the "main thing" -- our Wonderful Savior saving people.

Another point that really caught my attention in your post was this verse from NASB: Rom 15:7, Wherefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. NASB I love this word "accept." I don't think it was in our vocabulary. We had the word "receive." To me that kind of indicates we let people in our front door, but not really accepting what they are, or what gifts they may have in Christ. Verses like this fill the Bible, but we were indoctrinated that "diversity breeds division." This had the effect of closing our heart, putting standards on people, and "boxing in" God, which obviously He does not care for.

Cal

01-05-2009, 07:29 AM

Sorry to bring this up, but this was/is one of the major problems with the Local Church – one was/is virtually forced to swallow all sorts of things and stay put, no matter what. That is NOT practical oneness – that is forced behavior and forced oneness, and it is this very kind of dynamic that gets groups placed in the “cult” category.

Couldn't let this nugget get buried in the pile of posts.

Cal

01-05-2009, 07:37 AM

By the way, what am I saying that is raising eyebrows?

Hope, I really, really appreciate your being here. I just wanted to say that.

Let me say that when you say LSM has no interest in the one city one church model I am taken aback because I think that the teaching is still one means they use to control people.

First the claim to be the unique ministry to the local churches, then they claim that believers can only be in the local churches, add to this the implicit claim that they get to decide which local churches are genuine local churches, then they have the means of complete control.

So the one-church-one-city teaching is just another tool in their toolbox to control people. It's not the only one, but it's still an important one. Though it seems their global church ("The Baaady") model is becoming and even more important means of control for them.

What say you?

Cal

01-05-2009, 08:08 AM

Igzy,

So, are such practices as the Lord's Table, baptism, head covering just superfluous to you? If these things are really superfluous, why did Paul ordered to repeat these?

They are important because Paul commanded them. Paul never commanded the local ground.

Which brings up an interesting point. LCers see the head covering as optional, yet it is commanded. But they see the local ground as mandatory, yet it is not commanded. Makes sense? No.

"if we all genuinely receive and respect, then real oneness has been achieved"
why not having one set of elders AS THE RESULT?

Please rethink my position. Having one set of elders cannot be attained by forcing it. That state is just a natural outcome from genuine oneness among Christians - so fragile given human nature. That's why I regard that state as an "ideal state."

Jack Nicklaus once said the perfect golf score would be birdies on all par 3 holes and par 4 holes, and eagles on all par 5 holes. On an standard 18-hole, par-72 course (4 par 3s, 10 par 4s, 4 par 5s), that would be a score of 54. That's an ideal.

In all of golf, the lowest golf score ever recorded is 55--once by then amatuer Homero Blancas, in 1962. 56 has been recorded once. 57 once. However, a couple of 58s are the lowest scores recognized by the Guiness Book of Records. Millions and millions or rounds of golf are being recorded by amateurs, and thousands and thousands by professional. Rarely do they begin to approach the ideal. Does this invalidate them? Is golf lessened as a sport because the ideal is out of reach. Not a bit.

My point, of course, is that ideals are all well and good, but what practical person spends a whole lot of time fretting about them? And what sane person says, A 64 is not a very good round of golf because a 54 is the ideal?

It is possible that the Lord may bring all Christian in one city somewhere together under one eldership someday. In the meantime, I'd rather focus on what he actually is doing, and stop making the good the enemy of the ideal.

Hope

01-05-2009, 08:38 AM

Igzy,

Better stay away from the golf illustrations. Jack Nicklaus' perfect round of golf if you contend it has eagles on the par fives is not a 54 but is 50. A birdie on every hole is a 54. By the way I also once shot a 54. Of course it was for nine holes. Though, I am getting closer and closer to matching my age.

Hope, Don Rutledge

PS I intend to reply to your observations about the one church one city teaching being a method of control etc. but I wanted to take care of the important stuff first.

Cal

01-05-2009, 09:10 AM

Gubei,

If you don't see recognizing the local ground as mandatory, then why are you arguing with me about it? And if you do see it as mandatory, then your statement that you are not insisting on it is by definition false.

I see head covering as commanded, but I don't know whether hair is good enough or whether something more is needed. Jesus himself said that if you marry a divorced person you commit adultery. Yet I know of such marriages that seem to be blessed. Who am I to judge?

The point is I can know for my own life what God's commandments mean. But I can't know what they mean in all cases for others. I do not have complete wisdom. You act as if you have complete wisdom about practical oneness. The problem with your interpretation of local ground is that you seem to think your interpretation is precisely the right one. Yet I see reason to think, or at the very least to understand why someone else would think, you very well could be mistaken. When uncertainty is present liberality is required. For my trouble you announce that I oppose the truth.

I must allow free movement because I don't think the Bible gives me enough information to restrict it. That's the difference between what I believe and what you believe--mine is more general and liberal, not because I'm for generality and liberality, but because more specificity or restriction is not within my allotment of wisdom to insist upon. Your model restricts people more. Mine says, go to the Lord and let him tell you what oneness is. You say, I know what oneness is and everyone who doesn't agree with me is working against oneness.

Also, let me say that I don't appreciate your saying, in typically boorish LC fashion, that I am opposing the truth. Get off it. You don't have some monopoly on the truth, and you clearly don't have enough of a gift of discernment to be putting me in my place, as evidenced by your repeated in inability to properly interpret what I've written.

You said I didn't quote WN or WL because I was opposing "the truth." This statement is completely uncalled for. In the first place you can't possible know that, in the second I could provide plenty of quotes by WL which practically make the local ground as an article of faith. I've done my homework.

If you want to believe that the Lord's goal is to one day bring every city in the world under one eldership then you are certainly free to believe it. I for one would like more information before I commit to such a vision. For example, as I've asked ad nauseum, I would like to know what options the Christians who eventually come under such eldership have when they become convinced by the Lord that they should no longer follow that eldership if it becomes corrupt.

Hope

01-05-2009, 09:11 AM

Hope, I really, really appreciate your being here. I just wanted to say that.

Let me say that when you say LSM has no interest in the one city one church model I am taken aback because I think that the teaching is still one means they use to control people.

First the claim to be the unique ministry to the local churches, then they claim that believers can only be in the local churches, add to this the implicit claim that they get to decide which local churches are genuine local churches, then they have the means of complete control.

So the one-church-one-city teaching is just another tool in their toolbox to control people. It's not the only one, but it's still an important one. Though it seems their global church ("The Baaady") model is becoming and even more important means of control for them.

What say you?

Igzy,

The way you put it makes sense. But the BBs would never think "control." WL could never bring himself to accept the thought that there could be any kind of hierarchy or control over any church or saint. I spoke with him directly a few times about this and it also came up in a few elder-co/worker meetings. He always had a reaction like "how could this ever be." I heard him declare more than once, "We never practice control or hierarchy." I believe he sincerely believed that he never exercised control. From our vantage point on the hillside we can only shake our heads at his delusion. I believe it is the same with the BBs.

Now when you come to the matter of oneness and deputy authority it is another matter. Take your line of reasoning of eldership and one church, one city and you can easily see control.

On the other hand, the concept of one church, one city was a big item before the LSM. After the creation of the LSM and the centralization under Max Rapoport, the talk of the local ground was only selectively used. Mostly it was spoken against when some elders were taking it on the chin for not lining up with the latest flow.

In Raleigh, NC the LSMers left the city for a while because they could not take over the original church in Raleigh. But they came back a few years later and "retook the ground of the church." What a joke!! Since the original church in Raleigh would not submit to the control of Anaheim they lost their franchise. Now we have the real local church in Raleigh. Are you laughing yet? I am not laughing I am crying. What a farce.

I heard a few years back that the BBs have reduced the local churches to a mere procedure.

Thus, I must concede your point. The teaching of one church, one city, one set of elders etc is a tool for control.

Hope, Don Rutledge

PS For a while the LSM believers were the local church in Cary, NC, a suburb of Raleigh. Then one day with LSM sponsorship and a weekend conference for retaking the ground they became the local church in Raleigh. I cannot make this stuff up. Foolish, Foolishness, Ridiculous!!! How could something so stupid take place. It was not children playing in the sandbox. Would that it were.

Take one local man who was obsessed with self importance and ambition, mix in racial loyalty by 10-12 from Taiwan, add in the fleshly desire to be a part of a movement and to feel special about yourself and you get this Frankenstein monster child which brings shame to us all.

Cal

01-05-2009, 09:12 AM

Hope

01-05-2009, 10:02 AM

Dear Brother and Friend OBW, Mike,

Thanks for your response to my question on those approved in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. What was the understanding of the passage you grew up with? I cannot ever remember any teaching on this passage while we were in Dallas. I cannot remember what WL may have taught and I doubt if I have any of his material available. I have no interest in plowing through it.

At this point, I am only clear that there is the possibility of being approved or disapproved. Whether we are approved or disapproved is obviously related to division in the Body of Christ. Of course the idea of “we are it” is plainly disposed of in chapter one. I think this is Igzy’s key thought about the ground of the church. Declaring we are it is a sure sign you are not it.

I look forward to more discussion with you on this matter. I am not happy that you may be cutting back your time on the forum.

Hope, Don Rutledge

YP0534

01-05-2009, 10:14 AM

WL could never bring himself to accept the thought that there could be any kind of hierarchy or control over any church or saint. I spoke with him directly a few times about this and it also came up in a few elder-co/worker meetings. He always had a reaction like "how could this ever be." I heard him declare more than once, "We never practice control or hierarchy." I believe he sincerely believed that he never exercised control. From our vantage point on the hillside we can only shake our heads at his delusion. I believe it is the same with the BBs.

As I've said before, Lee never understood his role in creating the current Local Church denomination. Every step of its construction was based as surely as he knew how on a verse or an interpretation of a verse. But just because a decree comes from Jerusalem and out of the Bible doesn't mean it's not religion...

Cal

01-05-2009, 10:29 AM

Igzy,
The way you put it makes sense. But the BBs would never think "control." WL could never bring himself to accept the thought that there could be any kind of hierarchy or control over any church or saint. I spoke with him directly a few times about this and it also came up in a few elder-co/worker meetings. He always had a reaction like "how could this ever be." I heard him declare more than once, "We never practice control or hierarchy." I believe he sincerely believed that he never exercised control. From our vantage point on the hillside we can only shake our heads at his delusion. I believe it is the same with the BBs.

I think it must have occurred to some of them, if not Lee, that they are exercising control. I think what they have is what they would cleverly consider plausible deniability.

There was a poster on the other board, who shall remain unnamed, who continually and with a straight face made the argument that the Blendeds didn't control anyone because, looky, people have left the LC, therefore they were not controlled.

This kind of "thinking" is what you are dealing with with these people.

OBW

01-05-2009, 10:46 AM

I would say that Paul's concept concerning "approval" is well documented in the scriptures (if poorly studied and understood) and I would not presume the reading you've suggested (if you have indeed suggested it.) 2 Tim. 2:15 in particular is a strong parallel with regard to the concept of "approval" reflected in 1 Cor. 11:19.

I think it would be an excellent exercise (which I have not done and cannot fully do at present) to consider what exactly might Paul mean by "approved" (I think 2 Cor. 10:18 is particularly interesting!) but I'm not really seeing this reading I think you have suggested.

I look around this forum, in fact, and I think I can see 1 Cor. 11:19 in action from time to time.YP,

I understand your point. But, as with any word, someone’s typical usage is not a guarantee of consistent usage.

In any case, my response should be read for what it was. I made a reading based on the idea that the passage has a meaning, and you must then decide that Paul suddenly spent two sentences talking about something other than the rest of his paragraph when he made that statement. I did not say that he could not have done that.

But I often wonder how often we rely on what we have heard from others, or from some study of the consistency of how a word is used, or other such things to paint everything the same. Sort of like the old “when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail” way of thinking. Because the word is used a certain way in other places, it has no option here. I cannot claim that it does not. But the context puts a cloud on that in my mind.

When we look at 2 Cor 15:45, we find a statement about the last Adam. But Paul was not making a statement about transitions in the Trinity. He was answering a question about what kind of body we would have at the resurrection. Part of his answer was to make reference to the change in the physical essence of Christ. Paul did not make a doctrinal statement about Christ becoming the Holy Spirit, but a statement about the change in essence of Christ.

In 1 Cor 11:17-34, Paul is not talking about positive reasons for divisions, or factions. He is pointing at the problems about the divisive way they are meeting, and more specifically when they have their Lord’s Table. Paul does make reference to their divisions as something that “must be” in order to “show which of you have God’s approval” and then says no more about it. He never himself commends any of them as approved. In the midst of this particular paragraph, the common reading verges on nonsense if it is to be understood as a clear statement by Paul in support of some actually being approved by God. He never made any similar statement to any others that I can recall at the moment.

I would agree that to find truth we must often come together with our diversity of understanding and seek guidance. But there is no evidence that the Corinthians did such. Based on Paul’s earlier words, it would appear that they were too busy taking sides rather than joining in a search for truth. No one is shown anything when the ears are shut. In this case, there is something disturbing about this sentence saying what we have commonly believed in the middle of a paragraph, or more accurately the first of three or so paragraphs, on the Lord’s Table and the every man for himself kind of attitude that seemed to be displayed. It is difficult to see anything short of the slow(? maybe rapid?) decline of the church in Corinth with no one paying attention to anyone else but their own faction and their own stomachs.

Still, I do not say that this understanding is superior. I just note that the common understanding is quite uncertain when taken along with the rest of its context. Just like the LC understanding of the verses in 1 Cor 3:1-15, and more specifically 10-15 has been locked in a certain mindset for years, when Don asked about 11:19 in the context of what I had previously written, I could only see a question concerning the validity of any kind of division and the possibility that this verse did give some ground, but only for the purpose of clearing up those divisions. I must say that divisions are problematic. But I’m not sure this verse really says as much about them as we tend to think.

Actually, the biggest problem with divisions in the definition. What is a division (as we talk about them here in this form)? Is it really about names, or groups that represent less than a city? Or is it about acceptance v exclusion. If the latter, then it is probably not the denominations, the non-denominational groups, or the free groups. Instead, inside or outside of any of those groups, it is those who refuse others for less than true heresy or certain gross unrepentant sins. I daresay that while the Baptists may require that you “sign on” to their doctrinal positions to be a “voting member” of the congregation, they generally do not deny anyone admittance or participation in communion for such failure. So how truly divisive are they? At some level no more than the LC who may not require you to follow certain doctrines (at least on paper) but will help you find the door if you do not align yourself with them in most doctrines and practices. Maybe much less than the LC.

YP0534

01-05-2009, 11:43 AM

In 1 Cor 11:17-34, Paul is not talking about positive reasons for divisions, or factions. He is pointing at the problems about the divisive way they are meeting, and more specifically when they have their Lord’s Table. Paul does make reference to their divisions as something that “must be” in order to “show which of you have God’s approval” and then says no more about it. He never himself commends any of them as approved. In the midst of this particular paragraph, the common reading verges on nonsense if it is to be understood as a clear statement by Paul in support of some actually being approved by God.

OK. I follow you.

I agree that the customary reading does seem at least a bit out of place in context.

And I completely agree about hammers and nails, which is altogether too common an approach to scriptural interpretation.

You said it might not be the “right” way to look at this verse.

I only agreed with you. :D

Cal

01-05-2009, 11:52 AM

Igzy, 100% of people are being saved via the local churches, which include all the saints in the world.

So nobody ever gets saved outside the city limits?

I'm joking, but it does ask the question Which church are people who live in the country in.

Cal

01-05-2009, 12:13 PM

Actually, the biggest problem with divisions in the definition. What is a division (as we talk about them here in this form)? Is it really about names, or groups that represent less than a city? Or is it about acceptance v exclusion.

One of the ways local ground advocates stack the argument is by their rarefied use of the word division. Paul uses "division" to mean lack of fellowship caused by animosity. LCers take it to mean "not under the same leadership" and "not closely associated."

Hence, they say, only "divisions" caused by time and space (city limits) are permissible. But there is no evidence that the Bible considers two churches of any kind, even the local kind, as a case of any kind of division. That's an LC malapropism of the word division to lend weight to the concept of localism.

Two churches are not divisions of any sort that the Bible speaks to. Associating the Biblical meaning of the word division with the fact of some type of separation between two churches is a misuse of terms. In the LC case, it's a means to validate one eldership per city.

This was fairly typical of the LC approach: Redefine the meaning of words and then use them to make the case, or take a word with two meanings and then use the word as if it always means the same thing while taking advantage of the two meanings to make the case.

Cal

01-05-2009, 12:46 PM

UntoHim,

I have to say this.

I'm just responding to Igzy's posts. It is Igzy who first began to use a lot of posts, rather than using one or two. Everything is recorded in this site, am I right?

You wrote.
"Many of us heard these same arguments made before you were born."

So, why do you run this web-forum? I hope this is not intended to mock me.

As virtually you requested, I'm leaving.

Igzy,

I'm happy to have had such good fellowships with you. I hope our Lord be with you always.

Gubei

Gubei,

Sorry, I just now noticed this post since you (and I) post so many.

I don't think UntoHim asked you to leave. But I do think your doing so rather than simply adjusting your writing (and more important, listening) style is indicative of some inflexibility on your part.

I split up my posts in a feeble attempt to try to narrow down what you and I were talking about. Though I can't speak for him, I think UntoHim was reacting to your tendency to repeat yourself as if you hadn't really assimilated what I'd written, and to try to talk about every point at once, and to continually claim I hadn't answered questions which I had answered or whose answers could be gathered from what I'd written.

Even so, I enjoyed our discussion as well. I hope to see you soon.

Igzy

YP0534

01-06-2009, 04:36 AM

In 1 Cor 11:17-34, Paul is not talking about positive reasons for divisions, or factions.

Actually, the key may be even simpler than either you or I considered.

The term commonly translated "sects" in 11:19 is "αἵρεσις, hairesis," opinions, schools of thought.

In other words, Paul disapprovingly says he believes there are divsions (σχίσμα schisma) in verse 17, which doesn't surprise him because there need to be different opinions (αἵρεσις, hairesis) so that "the approved" may be manifest. Hope in the past has kind of hinted that something like this may be in these verses but I don't recall him actually articulating it.

Thus, 1 Cor. 11:17-19 is actually a strong antidote to the one-speaking doctrines that have grown up in the Local Church in recent years. Paul is endorsing diversity of opinion in the context of condemning divisiveness as a balancing word that might prevent what LSM has become.

We know that the Body of Christ incorporates those who do not consent to a one-publication rule in part because we know that the Body of Christ incorporates the assemblies in Asia in Rev. 2-3 although "all in Asia left" Paul. Rejecting the "unique minister of the age" did not terminate any "status" as an assembly. Why? Because, just as Paul says here, there must be different opinions that we may recognize who is "approved." (Eventually, I think we all know that Paul became manifestly "approved.") That said, such opinions must not become the basis for division, although it is altogether too common and predictable a result.

At least, that's my opinion...

Cal

01-06-2009, 08:10 AM

It's hard to see what Paul is actually getting at in 1 Cor 11:18-20. For review:
18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.

19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper (NASB)

In v. 18, it appears Paul is scandalized by the report of divisions, even shocked. But then he turns it around in v. 19 and seems to say that it is expected, even natural, and that some good may come of it. Verse 20 verifies that the divisions are really not a good thing.

A rough analogy might be when a mother comes home to find her child has wrecked his bedroom. At first the mother is aghast, but then says, "Well, I guess when you clean it up you might find the ball you lost last week."

Here are some other translations of v. 19:
No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. (NIV)

For doubtless there have to be factions or parties among you in order that they who are genuine and of approved fitness may become evident and plainly recognized among you. (Amplified)

No doubt you need to take sides in order to show which of you God agrees with! (NIV Readers)

The best that can be said for it is that the testing process will bring truth into the open and confirm it. (Message)
I like the NIV Readers somewhat, and The Message a lot here. (They have "taken sides" on what this verse means.) I especially like the tone of The Message. I think it may capture the meaning the best.

Unfortunately, Paul doesn't tell us how we will know who is approved. Will it be those who are the nicest? Those who always go along with the official elders? Those who stay loyal to the Ministry. He doesn't say, he just says we will know. It's probably some combination of a lot of things. Observed godliness, adherence to truth, peace-seeking, etc.

But here's an important thing. If Paul were endorsing the LSM brand of approvedness, he simply would have said, Always submit to the ministry. He wouldn't have said that there is a dynamic vetting process of which we can't at the beginning know the outcome. Paul doesn't know who is going to be approved! He just knows that it's possible that someone will come out of a divisive disagreement approved, which implies that someone will come out disapproved.

When you think about it, there is really no other way, other than arbitration, which is--you guessed it--the LSM way. Arbitration by them, or by "the Apostle." That is, the poobah or several poobahs come in and tell everyone who's who and what's what. Anyone who doesn't fall in line is kicked out and blacklisted. But that's not Paul's way in 1 Corinthians.