One Church - One City - Biblical? [Archive] - Page 2

PDA

View Full Version : One Church - One City - Biblical?

Pages : 1 [2]

Drake

11-04-2016, 10:03 AM

aron

11-04-2016, 11:03 AM

aron

11-04-2016, 11:11 AM

I guess you missed those meetings with Witness Lee where he abolished the thought of any LC autonomy, and set the limits for the elders at certain important decisions like setting the time to start the prayer meeting.

Witness Lee's RecV footnotes in Revelation are clear: each local church is supposed to be "exactly identical", with "no differences whatever". Did the apostle John write that? No, but Lee sussed that out of the problems of the seven Asian churches. To Lee, the real problem was that they weren't exactly identical.

He said the lampstands (in heaven) were identical. Have you ever seen a calyx? They are flowers. Is any flower identical? Or a pomegranate? Is any snowflake identical? Any cloud?

How about "coming to Him, as living stones"? Any living stones absolutely identical, with no differences whatsoever? No? Okay, then what about man-made objects like, oh I dunno, bricks? Like, for instance, to be used for building up a nice, tall tower in Babel?

We were told to be "Witness Lee tape recorders" - don't think, just repeat what the Great Man said. Don't stand out. Be identical; be a grey, shapeless, proletarian mass. "Small potatoes" we called ourselves. "Oh, I'm just a little brother in the local churches". Then the arguably penultimate step was the "One Trumpet" and "One Publication" edict - unless you have the "mark", i.e. the imprimateur of a certain publishing house in southern California, then you can't buy or sell in the local churches. Sounded positively 'beastly' to me.

Drake

11-04-2016, 12:57 PM

It seems to me that you are re-branding. When the Bible speaks of multiple ekklesia in one area, you call them "meetings". But when you see multiple meetings that you don't like (because they aren't "affiliated with" [read: subservient to) the lone ministry of the age, so-called) you call them "churches", and say there's only one, allowed. So that is a division.

When your denomination has multiple gatherings, assemblies, services, you call them "meetings", as in "College meeting" or "Prayer meeting at sister Smith's house". But the Bible called them ekklesia. Both NT and OT (LXX).

hi aron,

I understand you cannot discern the distinction between the reasons and causes for divisions/denominations vs. the physical distance between multiple meeting halls of believers in the same city standing on the ground of oneness.

No amount of explanation has convinced you. And though I disagree with your views on this point you have your reasons for holding them based on events that shaped your viewpoint.

My experience was different from yours even though I also lived through the same era and events you did. I also had some firsthand experience in your patch. I have a guiding vision where the biblical facts align perfectly with the leading of the Spirit concerning the Church and the churches. Some have argued that the leaders were/are imperfect, or the execution was flawed, or awful things happened and therefore the whole is to be rejected. I will not argue with any of those citations except what should be done about it. I am reminded that none of us are without sin, faults, and shortcomings, and yet God still viewed the church in Corinth with all its sin, faults, and strife as the church of God in Corinth. His view is what matters to me the most.

I understand that is a moot point for you.

Drake

Nell

11-04-2016, 01:00 PM

What scriptural basis is used in this teaching that we can dismiss the descriptive in favor of the prescriptive? Anyone could make up a prescriptive to replace the text of the Bible!!
It's not a teaching. It's common sense. One example,
2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

Is this verse prescriptive or descriptive? Actually, it's just a personal request from Paul to Timothy.

Another one: Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

There is a group who took this verse as a prescriptive and formed a religion of "snake handlers".

But you are right. Anyone could make a prescriptive and WL DID repeatedly made up prescriptives when observing what the Bible described in the New Testament, and made a religion out of it...especially related to his locality doctrine.

This was not my bright idea. The first time I heard about prescriptive v. descriptive was in a conversation with Bill Mallon. If you Google "prescriptive v. descriptive" you will see that without determining how text is used, it would be easy to come up with "prescriptions" that were never intended to be anything other than a description. Seminary students are familiar with this tool used to study the Bible, as are students of linguistics. WL boasted that he had no degree from a seminary and he knew the Bible better than.....on and on. Maybe he should have taken a class or two.

Regardless, I'm not dismissing anything. Rather, I'm suggesting that the context in which a statement was made be studied to determine its intent...before we go running off to Troas to see if we can find Paul's cloak and the parchments.

Nell
PS: Do you eat bacon?

Drake

11-04-2016, 03:13 PM

hi Nell,

An example from the topic of this thread: The descriptive view of the local churches in the Bible is one church one city. A prescriptive view is there can be a number of churches in a city made up of 2 people each!

Drake

P.S. I probably eat more bacon than I should. I would not eat any were it not for Acts 10.

Yet, I prefer duck hands down. ;-)

OBW

11-04-2016, 05:11 PM

"And while you like to say that you have history and scripture on your side, maybe you could try to show some of it. Try starting with a single item of evidence. Let's see if it really means what you think it means. When we have either proved or disproved that, let's move to another"

OBW,

For comparison and contrast provide a scriptural basis for division/denominations.

Try starting with a single piece of evidence. Let's see if it really means what you think it means

When we have either proved or disproved that, let's move to another.

DrakeFirst, it would help the conversation if you registered. But it is not my problem, so I will go on.

The whole biblical/unbiblical analysis is something that needs understanding. There are things that are:

Clearly required by the Bible
Permitted by the Bible
Clearly forbidden by the Bible

These things might be referred to as biblical or unbiblical. But there is a huge host of things that are simply not addressed, or addressable, in terms of the biblical/unbiblical dichotomy. This is because the reason that the Bible does or does not have anything to say about them is not directly related to the thing itself.

Is driving a car unbiblical? Clearly, without qualifiers, there is nothing in the Bible about it. It can be neither biblical nor unbiblical in itself. Speeding while driving a car is technically unbiblical because it is contradiction of the general rule to obey they authorities. But that is not about simply driving the car, but how you are driving the car.

So you think that divisions and denominations are simply covered in the Bible. That is a question that must be answered before you can apply the Bible to it. I believe that there is a passage that mentions something about "that there be no divisions among you" or words to that effect. And I would agree. But first, the passage is written to people who are meeting together. They are an assembly, not the whole of the collection of all Christians universally. And even within that assembly, the writer goes on to say that there must be division, or factions.

So the question to you is, what do you think is meant by the references to division here in 1 Corinthians? Does it simply mean don't see eye-to-eye on everything? Or that those who do agree meet separately to keep the peace? Or that they seriously disagree and presume that the others are in grievous error such that their standing before God is significantly (if not completely) compromised?

And no matter which version you come down in favor of, on what basis do you determine that your solution — that of defining what is the correct formula for having a church — actually cures "division"? Do you think that simply meeting as the church according to a city will make you agree on all things doctrinal or even practical? If the format of the meeting is that anyone can speak from what we have gleaned from our thoughts, reading, prayers, experience, etc., during the week will my consideration of the enlightenment I received from a certain passage of scripture based upon some reading from (Swindol, Piper, Wright, McKnight, Fitch, Henry, Scofield, etc.) be appreciated or groaned at? (I know how this works. I saw 14+ years of it.) If I cannot get behind the peculiar teachings of Lee, and even question some of them, will I still be allowed to remain? Will that be permitted as part of the "factions that will cause those who are approved to be made manifest" or will it simply not be tolerated?

The problem is that you want everyone to come your way. But you can't defend your way. And even if were to give in on the "ground of the church," it would not be enough. There would be a new round of reasons for excluding us. Things like asserting that we want clean sheets. Or that we dared to teach young people to start with the Bible and a host of commentaries and Bible dictionaries, then after going through all of that, discover whether it supported and agreed with "the ministry" (meaning the ministry of Lee). There is a very long publication defining the reasons that Titus Chu was expelled. Among them was the fact that he did those things mentioned above. He also self-published materials that he used for his meetings and for his evangelistic efforts. And he did not always agree on everything that the so-called "blended brothers" said about things.

Then when this happened and whole churches, still meeting according to the "local ground of oneness" refused to excommunicate Titus Chu like Anaheim and the LSM wanted, Anaheim sent lawyers to sue to get property back — as if Anaheim or the LSM was the holder of the property of a local church. And they went to sue to get the right to use the original name, "church in [city]."

Let's discuss division. What are they talking about when the Bible says "that there be no divisions among you"? Are you certain that simply meeting on the ground cures or avoids all division? The evidence is that it absolutely does not.

And you know what was meant when it said "division"? Does it simply mean "they don't agree on every nuance of doctrine and practice"? Or does it mean that they are effectively at war? The description that Paul gives in his letter to Corinth looks at least a little like war. They wouldn't even eat with each other. They were excluding each other. There is a reference to "when the whole church comes together." Was this the place of inability to get along? They simply couldn't stomach those "others" (sounds like something from "Lost").

I will admit that there is a level of division within Christians. But that division is generally smaller than the agreement that we have. Oddly, the division between almost any Christian group and the LRC is greater than what stands between most of the groups excluding the LRC. And that division is viewed as "very great" from the perspective of the LRC, and "not much different than between us and any other group" from the other perspective.

I disagree with you about many teachings. But none of the core of the faith. My disagreement with you is not significant. That does not mean that I do not think the things I consider errors in your teachings are completely benign and harmless. But I do not consider any of it to impinge upon your inclusion and participation in the household of faith. Our assembly would not withhold communion from you. Nor would we refuse to participate in communion with you. But you would. And you see the failure of everyone to not go your way as evidence of grievous error. Error so extreme that you cannot partake of communion with them. You make some claims of having fellowship with all Christians, but you withhold the most significant part of fellowship.

Since you also want to discuss denominations in the same context, I will start by noting that there is no scripture for or against the practice. At this point in time, it is evident that the number of churches (assemblies) within the city of Dallas is very large. No matter how you dice it, if we stick to the city proper and assume that only 10% of the population is Christian, and that you want to keep the population of any particular meeting (assembly) to an average of 250 people, there will be roughly 500 assemblies (based on the 2015 population estimate). Some of those will be in mostly Hispanic neighborhoods. Some will be in older, well-established neighborhoods that have mostly retired persons. Others will be neighborhoods of mostly young urban professionals, many of them single. And so on. The manner of meeting will somewhat reflect aspects of the people who are in the meeting. The younger ones will gravitate to more modern forms of worship and music while the older will gravitate to other forms. If we assume that the Spirit is free to move as He wills, there is nothing to cause any of these to simply be just like any other.

And they all agree that they are just "church" and are part of the city of Dallas, taking no particular name. People will refer to each assembly as simply the church meeting at [address].

So you live in the Victory area of Uptown and the closest assembly is using newer songs of praise, and sprinkling their meetings with some intentional practices like responsive readings, and a certain part of every meeting is designed for the people to join in repentance (a "forgive us our trespasses" kind of thing).

But that is not what you want to be doing. Are you going to get in your car and drive a little further to attend a group that doesn't do any kind of "liturgy" (at least in the old-style sense) and sings only hymns from an approved hymnal. And uses only a piano and occasionally a couple of acoustic guitars rather than also having some drums, and organ, or even electric guitar?

And beyond the somewhat outward differences, some of the groups have gravitated to understand salvation as requiring more than a one-time claim of "belief" since even John 3:16 says "whosever believes," not "whosoever believed."

Yet despite all of these differences (and probably more) each of them is joining with the others in evangelistic efforts. In efforts to help the poor, underprivileged of their communities (both Christian and non-Christian). They come out to fix up the meeting place of the poor group that doesn't agree with everything they hold to so that those people can worship God without fear that the foundation will fail as they meet. They all send missionaries to various places and pray for the needs of each others groups.

And given the likely diversity among these groups, I suspect that you will start to have an unwritten listing of what groups generally fit together so that you and others can decide which will be your regular meeting place. No one is offended that you drove past theirs to get to the one you meet with. They are happy that you are meeting.

And since the various groups tend to sort of further simplify into those common groups of groups, they get labeled. Not to be ugly. Or to exclude anyone. But to let anyone know what is different about each. So that the members of the universal church can meet without distraction.

The funny thing about all of this is that even within denominations, there is diversity. The association is not entirely inflexible. And it does not cover every aspect of belief and practice. But to hear the LRC talk about it, there is some serous control. Are you aware that Baptists are not required to do anything? They are members of the group by choice. And they can choose to not be part of the group.

I am a member of a church that has a common naming convention with other churches, yet is not a denomination and has no headquarters. We do believe a lot the same about things. But not entirely. There was recently some serious controversy about one of them that did something that had many of the others up in arms. The debate in the open media was intense. There was even a few threats of violence. But the truth is that none of these separate assemblies every considered this particular assembly to be in grievous error, or cut them off from fellowship. In the middle of it all, the preacher of this one and one of the others switched pulpits a couple of times. And the "issue" was never on the agenda for discussion or preaching about.

That is unity in diversity. You think it is division. But it is not. You want unity in conformity. You want the contemporary service at our church to dump its praise band, and the traditional service to accept popcorn testimonies read from a single, pre-defined source of writing. You really don't care whether forcing your will on others is spiritually correct or helpful. You just want to wield "unity" as a weapon to force conformity. And conformity to your image, not the image of God.

Division is spoken of in the Bible. But you cannot assert that there really is any real division "out there." And denominations are just a boogeyman. You want conformity to your ways but decry any others who agree to conform without forcing others in the same way. Your version of unity is worse than division. It is like when the RCC declares all Protestant and EO assemblies to be "damaged" since they are not meeting with the "true church." Of course their version of the true church is the RCC.

You mock people for praying "poor" prayers. You would scoff at "Bless us, Oh Lord, and these thy gifts which we are about to receive from thy bounty, through Christ, Our Lord. Amen." But cherish simply saying "Oh Lord Jesus" over and over without ever saying anything about anything.

And you insist that the world beat a path to your door.

The Bible does not speak against diversity. Only division. It does not say that we cannot meet in any particular way, only that we meet.

Rather than charging me to say how the Bible supports our meetings and groups, you should show how it denies them. The groups are neither biblical nor unbiblical from where I sit. Therefore I cannot provide a list of verses to say that it is so. I can only say that I do not find anything that denies them. So it falls on you to establish that they are not allowed and provide evidence for your claim.

OBW

11-04-2016, 05:18 PM

PS: Do you eat bacon?Oh Nell! The law was abolished!! We just wait for the dispensing. If we don't have enough to fulfill the law of letters, then it doesn't matter. Must be premature light.

:losinit::truce::hysterical:

Drake

11-04-2016, 06:38 PM

(OBW) "The problem is that you want everyone to come your way"

You clearly are confusing me with someone else.

It seems to irk you that I am at peace with my choice. Is it okay with you that I made my choice based on biblical teaching, leading of the Spirit, revelation, and His shining?

(OBW) "Division is spoken of in the Bible. But you cannot assert that there really is any real division "out there.""

Supporting division/denominations from the Bible is a near impossible task. In your attempt you simply punted and asked me to refute your fallacious argument from silence.

If you have any biblibcal evidence supporting division/denominations we can examine that in light of Scripture.

Drake

Evangelical

11-04-2016, 07:18 PM

You say things like this, but cannot establish that any possible situation was more than the way it was at the particular time in a particular place. In one particular place there is reference to the people having all things in common. But even that was somewhat overstated. It was generally true. More like theoretical communism in which needs are met, but not necessarily meaning that only the collective owned anything and not the individuals.

There are two questions to this. 1) what was it like in the early church? and 2) does it apply today?

Regarding the first question 1)

Actually testallthings already posted some factual things in Post number #53 "Various Themes by Evangelical" thread. I repost it here:

It is a clear historical fact that there was only one church in one city.

Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John, and the third bishop of Antioch, while on his way to be martyred in Rome, wrote to

“the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia,”
“the Church which is at Magnesia, near the Moeander,”
“the holy Church which is at Tralles, in Asia,”

“the Church...which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans”
“the Church …. which is at Philadelphia, in Asia,”
“the Church which is at Smyrna, in Asia,”

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/IGNATIUS.HTM

Regarding authority in the church he writes to the Ephesians (and to other churches, too)

CHAP. V.--THE PRAISE OF UNITY.
For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop--I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature--how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses[4] such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church !He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even[5] by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, "God resisteth the proud."[9] Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.
CHAP. VI.--HAVE RESPECT TO THE BISHOP AS TO CHRIST HIMSELF.
Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence,[10] the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household,[11] as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.

“The model of church organization that was formed during the first three centuries of Christianity was based on the principle of "one city-one bishop-one Church", which foresaw the assignment of a certain ecclesiastical territory to one concrete bishop. In accordance with this principle, the "Canons of the Apostles" and other canonical decrees of the ancient Church point to the inadmissibility of violating the boundaries of ecclesiastical territories by bishops or clergy.”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...nOneBishop.php
..................................................
Dale Mody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation, page 435

https://books.google.com.tw/books?id...page&q&f=false

If we can agree that this is how things were in the early church, then we can focus on the question of whether it applies today?

To address the second question 2) does it apply today? I can easily show that the early church model continued for 1000 of years (in Catholic, Orthodox). It was considered important to keep to the apostolic traditions and still is today in many respects.

Protestantism was not a license to do church however we wanted, ideally it should have reformed the existing Catholic church. What you are advocating for is not reformation or continuing the apostolic traditions but a license to do whatever we want however we want.

I can easily show that going back to the way things were in 1) is the genuine expression of Christianity.

Therefore your church with its name doing things how it sees fit is a division of a division of a division, or a sect of a sect of a sect ..

Actually your idea that we can do church however we like would be a foreign concept to the early church just as it is a foreign concept to the denominations that hold to apostolic traditions today.

Nell

11-04-2016, 07:39 PM

Oh Nell! The law was abolished!! We just wait for the dispensing. If we don't have enough to fulfill the law of letters, then it doesn't matter. Must be premature light.

:losinit::truce::hysterical:

Oh yeah...I musta' forgot. You saved my bacon! :party:

Evangelical

11-04-2016, 07:51 PM

Nell

11-05-2016, 07:46 AM

Suppose that the opposers are correct, the bible does not state how we can or should do church.

The question remains - what should church look like?, how should we do it?

I would approach it like this: we could ask ourselves the question does 1000 denominations or one church per city best reflect the unity and oneness of the Body of Christ?

Common sense (and church history) shows it is the latter.

Really?

"We" don't "do it". "We" follow the Lamb ourselves and otherwise mind our own business. Don't impose our own will upon others. Don't presume to speak for God when He can well speak for Himself. Allow others the freedom which God has allowed for His own children. HIS children. Not yours. His.

Common sense and church history? Really? Is that the standard? Whose common sense? What chapter of church history? Can we say that "church history" is full of man interfering with believers who have been misled away from the leading of the Holy Spirit? Is God so inept that He needs you to define His church for Him and dictate how to "do" it?

Lord help us and forgive us for our presumption.

Nell

UntoHim

11-05-2016, 11:52 AM

aron

11-05-2016, 12:10 PM

If you have any biblibcal evidence supporting division/denominations we can examine that in light of Scripture.

Drake

When your group holds multiple assemblies in a geographical area, you call it "multiplication". When other Christians hold multiple meetings, you call it "division". When Christians have a name and extra-local affiliation you call it "denomination" and condemn. But when they don't have a name or affiliation, or set the boundary of the city (assuming they are in a city?) as their purview you call them "free groups" and deem them useless to build up the Body of Christ.

Again and again I see two metrics being applied. When "we" do it, it is biblical, spiritual, normal, proper, and true. When "others" do it, it is unbiblical, natural, fleshly, carnal, dark, deformed, abnormal, and false.

Subjective, much? "So subjective is my Christ to me/Real in me, and rich and sweet". So subjective is my Christ to me, that I can define reality as I please, put a line on the ground separating myself from 99.97% of my fellow believers as hopelessly corrupted failures, "because the Bible says so", and go my merry self-approved way.

And when you realize that the world isn't rushing along behind you say, "Oh well, it's the narrow way. Not for everyone."

ZNPaaneah

11-05-2016, 12:11 PM

First, it would help the conversation if you registered. But it is not my problem, so I will go on.

The whole biblical/unbiblical analysis is something that needs understanding. There are things that are:

Clearly required by the Bible
Permitted by the Bible
Clearly forbidden by the Bible

Excellent. I think the NT clearly requires that we gather together.

I think that all gatherings of Christians in the name of Jesus are permitted.

I think that much of what WL did with the LC was clearly forbidden by the Bible.

Ohio

11-05-2016, 12:43 PM

Suppose that the opposers are correct, the bible does not state how we can or should do church.

The question remains - what should church look like?, how should we do it?

On a forum of members and ex-members, who are these "opposers."

Drake

11-05-2016, 12:55 PM

One Church - One City? Not if this One Church is the Local Church of Witness Lee. Move to another city. Move to another state. Move to another continent if you have to, but do not lose your freedom to choose.

The local church you describe is not one I am acquainted with. I have never ever lost my freedom to choose. The vision that guides me is His shining and I came and choose to stay based on that. To me, Brother Lee was a servant of the Lord and a brother in the Lord. The Lord used him and Watchman Nee to open up many truths from the Bible. I appreciate them for that. Though I honored and respected Brother Lee in his function as an apostle (small "a") I never put him on a pedestal and I never felt for even a moment that I lost my ability to choose.

You mentioned one of his coworkers. I feel the same way about them. Sometimes what they say resonates and sometimes not. I go with His shining. The blessing of His speaking is still here and He compels me to stay. If my freedom to choose is diminished it is only when He limits my choices.

aron

11-05-2016, 02:33 PM

Sometimes what they say resonates and sometimes not. I go with His shining. The blessing of His speaking is still here and He compels me to stay. .

I felt the same way. Some of it was of God, some of it was of men. Eventually I left. I just felt the Spirit of God, undeniable, thrusting me back into "the wilderness". I don't regret my choices, because above all I always chose to seek. "Seek and you will find". Find and you will marvel (see the many NT verses, "His disciples marveled greatly"). Marvel and you will reign. Reign and you will find rest. Because that is your destiny.

The marveling tailed out in Witness Lee's local church, somewhere between being castigated for being "old and cold" and then "God became man to make man God", to the "high peak revelation" and "great revival to end the age". . . I really tried singing "Oh home in the church/where we've ended our search" but I guess I was just born a seeker, so I decided not to end my search.

I don't begrudge you or Evangelical for your decisions to stay. Sorry if I've been somewhat dismissive or disrespectful. I enjoy writing & get carried on by my thoughts & doing so often build straw men, just to blow them down, same as Lee & many more did before me. "Fallen Christianity" & all that. . . we all fail somewhat. That's why mercy saves - show mercy, get mercy.

Ah well. Jesus reigns, and in Him alone we hope. Peace & God bless.

Ohio

11-05-2016, 02:50 PM

Drake, what's your opinion of John Ingalls and Titus Chu?

OBW

11-05-2016, 04:51 PM

Evangelical

11-06-2016, 01:03 AM

When your group holds multiple assemblies in a geographical area, you call it "multiplication". When other Christians hold multiple meetings, you call it "division". When Christians have a name and extra-local affiliation you call it "denomination" and condemn. But when they don't have a name or affiliation, or set the boundary of the city (assuming they are in a city?) as their purview you call them "free groups" and deem them useless to build up the Body of Christ.

Drake has asked for "biblical evidence supporting division/denominations". All you can offer is your opinion.

Evangelical

11-06-2016, 01:18 AM

Really?

"We" don't "do it". "We" follow the Lamb ourselves and otherwise mind our own business. Don't impose our own will upon others. Don't presume to speak for God when He can well speak for Himself. Allow others the freedom which God has allowed for His own children. HIS children. Not yours. His.

Common sense and church history? Really? Is that the standard? Whose common sense? What chapter of church history? Can we say that "church history" is full of man interfering with believers who have been misled away from the leading of the Holy Spirit? Is God so inept that He needs you to define His church for Him and dictate how to "do" it?

Lord help us and forgive us for our presumption.

Nell

Common sense - just as common sense tells us that a married couple should live together, we can say that a church should be one and not scattered in various denominations.

Church history - the church history that shows the church was one for hundreds of years. The notion of doing church however we like and not according to any God-ordained pattern or blue print is a modern invention of man. That's why even Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican etc do not agree with this view.

Should we trust someone who claims to know the invisible God yet cannot define the visible church? 1 John 4:20 ".....for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen".

If Christians cannot be unified visibly and practically with their brothers in Christ (when there is no good reason for them not to be) then their claims to know the invisible God are just empty words.

The denominations are catering for the whims and desires of individuals but not striving for achieving God's plan for oneness and unity.

aron

11-06-2016, 03:17 AM

Drake has asked for "biblical evidence supporting division/denominations". All you can offer is your opinion.

Yes. My opinion is that 'denominations' in drakes hand is entirely subjective. "When we do it, it isn't a denomination." So his question is moot.

And as I said, those who don't 'denominate' per drake's rule, are still condemned as "free groups". So what's the point, really? The leech cries, Give, give, and is never satisfied. So I was saying, why bother. You'll never be happy, with any definition.

We were told that getting the name thing right was precursor to a great blessing, not found anywhere else. Many of those who tried that, now categorically disagree. In fact it was a hook, a trap to ensnare the simple.

Ohio

11-06-2016, 06:31 AM

In his short reply, aron said much that many of us were and are troubled with.
Yes. My opinion is that 'denominations' in drake's hand is entirely subjective. "When we do it, it isn't a denomination." So his question is moot.Nee and Lee created a false standard of the "proper name" from several descriptive verses in Revelations. They also condemned all pastors, priests, and reverends only to replace them with full-timers, coworkers, and "brothers" from LSM. It's all a huge name-blame-game with Rule #1 "only what we do is right."

And as I said, those who don't 'denominate' per drake's rule, are still condemned as "free groups". So what's the point, really? The leech cries, Give, give, and is never satisfied. So I was saying, why bother. You'll never be happy, with any definition.Lee's Genesis L.S. message on Lot excoriates any and all free groups as his incestuous daughters, conceived in caves. Read it. It is simply ruthless. But, are not free groups the only Christian gatherings truly without a name? For Lee to condemn them was the height of hypocrisy. So the standard he used to judge all denominations could not be applied to them. No problem. Change the standard for free groups. Remember Rule #1.

We were told that getting the name thing right was precursor to a great blessing, not found anywhere else. Many of those who tried that, now categorically disagree. In fact it was a hook, a trap to ensnare the simple.After every major "storm" of purging, with so many precious saints ousted, Lee always promised great blessings. "If only you would be absolutely one with my ministry, like in the days of Elden Hall ..." And so the zealots hunkered down, ready to purge any and all who appeared lukewarm to the ministry, thus preparing us for the next "storm." How many of these "storms" do we need to pass through in order for wisdom to seep thru the cracks of our heart?

I personally have posted literally hundreds of LC hypocrisies which her supporters have never responded to. They can't. That's just how LSM has always covered up its unrighteousness. Yet her supporters return to the same old condemnations of the body of Christ. Like that brother near me who sits at home in his closet, condemning all churches for not doing the same, the LC faithful adhere to their master's old "convictions."

Drake

11-06-2016, 10:32 AM

Drake, what's your opinion of John Ingalls and Titus Chu?

They are gifted brothers. I received help from both.

As regards to the governance of the church they both made mistakes.

Drake

Ohio

11-06-2016, 11:41 AM

They are gifted brothers. I received help from both.
As regards to the governance of the church they both made mistakes.
Drake

Drake, their own churches never excommunicated them, and what do you mean by "mistakes?"

Drake

11-07-2016, 06:47 AM

Drake, their own churches never excommunicated them, and what do you mean by "mistakes?"

I don't recall excommunication ever being on the table.

OBW

11-08-2016, 06:03 AM

Common sense - just as common sense tells us that a married couple should live together, we can say that a church should be one and not scattered in various denominations.Well then, the church I attend has no denominational ties. I suggest that everyone in Dallas should join with ours. We were here long before anything that tried to usurp our un-denominated position with a formula for a name.

But unlike yours, we do not denigrate others for simply not being us. We do have reasoned discussion about issues of spiritual importance. But it does not invalidate the other(s), rather provides something for consideration. And if they change their view, they are not obligated to shutter their meeting and join ours. Rather we can, and do even without the agreement on the nonessential issues, continue as the church of Christ, bearing His image in this world. And in unity concerning our faith in Christ.

Unfortunately, there are some who declare that unity is only found in agreement on all things and that such agreement should be based on their understanding. They have no unity with anyone no agreeing completely with them and taking their way.

That is not unity no matter how "right" you think you name is. The name does not spread a healing balm over the sectarian wounds of your demand for your way or else. It does not correct the errors of you sectarianism. You are not Israel —the "chosen people of God" — based on a name. That is a fantasy. You are part of the household of faith. No less. No more.

OBW

11-08-2016, 06:48 AM

Church history - the church history that shows the church was one for hundreds of years. The notion of doing church however we like and not according to any God-ordained pattern or blue print is a modern invention of man. That's why even Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican etc do not agree with this view.Actually, the church was not so one, even in the first century. Paul had to take one to task for not even being one all by itself. And there was contention between the gentile and Jewish churches.

Following that, there was great dissention over things. Some of them we think of as significant errors, and others just differences in what we would now call the non-essentials. But those that wanted total and complete unity dictated the thinking through the councils and eventually through the wielding of authority granted by the government.

Yet we find that there were churches that were not affected by these things that continued all the way into this century. Churches that were separated from the others almost from the beginning.

Yet you claim there was this wonderful unity from the beginning and going on for several centuries thereafter. I would not disagree that there was a tendency for uniformity within the primary groups. And do not say that was bad. But even you agree that the answer was not to still be within those ancient groups. Rather to find your way according to your conscience and understanding of scripture. You want it one way for your group, and the opposite for everyone else.

Unity is not simply in the EO, or RCC, or any other earlier group. It is found in Christ. And Christ is in all of us. It the prayer of Christ that we would be one. Not that we would be uniform. The lack of discourse on issues within a single group who thinks they have found "the truth" in all its facets is a breeding ground for error. It is in the diversity of opinion that we keep each other within the way. Only the very decidedly closed can wander too far astray. But as your position is that you have the truth and the only "unity," You are the most nearly destined for error. We may or may not have insignificant errors but are constantly reviewing. You are set and closed and have no way to consider your errors because you have turned you face from any who, while your brothers, have even the slightest difference of opinion.

We don't need to justify denominations from scripture any more than we need to justify driving automobiles. There may be walls, but they are walls of rhetoric, not walls of differing faith. Meanwhile, your walls are absolute. You only seek to evangelize the world for your way. Never consider how you may have wandered into error.

Ohio

11-08-2016, 07:30 AM

This is a far more accurate assessment of church history than any which I heard from Nee or Lee.

I still find it amazing just how diverse the 7 churches in Asia were. If you look carefully at the map below, all 7 cities were naturally connected in valleys by roads and rivers, or by ship. None of these churches were geographically isolated or excessively remote. Within the Roman Empire, travel was actually quite good for the day. The 7 churches probably were on a travel circuit of the Apostles. Some have noted that this connecting "circuit" was in the shape of a rainbow, when viewed on the oblique.

http://i67.tinypic.com/2afihxl.jpg

Also, the shepherding of these 7 churches was firstly by Paul (the tent builder) and his co-workers, and then by John (the net mender) and his co-workers. Yet, reading these 7 epistles, they are quite diverse. Makes me wonder just how "one" they were with each other. Was Ephesus properly judging the false apostles in other churches, and did Smyrna suffer at the hands of those who hold the teaching of Balaam in Pergamos, we have no way to know.

Nee and Lee told us they were all identical, except for the negatives. Actually they were not identical in almost any way, and it is doubtful that some of these places even clung to the "seven ones" in Ephesus. Yet the Son of Man walked in the midst of these 7 golden lampstands. And remember that Paul, a generation earlier, even called Corinth "the church of God."

And the LSM acolytes here want us to believe that all a church needs to do is pick the right name, and btw it's worth suing others over in Gentile courts, and then all God's blessing will be on you. And you alone.

Drake

11-08-2016, 09:21 AM

The Roman highways made it easier and safer to travel between cities but it still took awhile to walk from place to place. You'd have to think about it before starting that venture.

Churches in closer proximity to each other like Colosse, Laodicea, Hierapolis had more fellowship together and Paul requested the letters he wrote to each be read to the other.

In spite of their differences and circumstances they were viewed as a golden lampstand. They were identical in that way. And on the negative side they did not split up into many churches due to their differences so there were not several churches in Colosse or Laodicea.

Ohio

11-08-2016, 10:56 AM

Yes, I agree with your points.

Supposedly, by having the "right" name, all these churches should have enjoyed God's best blessings. I don't see it.

Supposedly, by having the "wrong" name, all other churches should have enjoyed none of God's blessings. I don't see that either.

In fact, it was all the corruption within the LC's, both by the Blendeds during the '00 quarantines, and by Lee himself during the '90 quarantines, that caused me to leave. They have to fabricate "blessings" in order to keep the flock penned up. They have to maintain strict information control and smear campaigns to keep them believing the lies.

Drake

11-08-2016, 01:27 PM

Evangelical

11-08-2016, 09:21 PM

Actually, the church was not so one, even in the first century. Paul had to take one to task for not even being one all by itself. And there was contention between the gentile and Jewish churches.

Following that, there was great dissention over things. Some of them we think of as significant errors, and others just differences in what we would now call the non-essentials. But those that wanted total and complete unity dictated the thinking through the councils and eventually through the wielding of authority granted by the government.

Yet we find that there were churches that were not affected by these things that continued all the way into this century. Churches that were separated from the others almost from the beginning.

Yet you claim there was this wonderful unity from the beginning and going on for several centuries thereafter. I would not disagree that there was a tendency for uniformity within the primary groups. And do not say that was bad. But even you agree that the answer was not to still be within those ancient groups. Rather to find your way according to your conscience and understanding of scripture. You want it one way for your group, and the opposite for everyone else.

Unity is not simply in the EO, or RCC, or any other earlier group. It is found in Christ. And Christ is in all of us. It the prayer of Christ that we would be one. Not that we would be uniform. The lack of discourse on issues within a single group who thinks they have found "the truth" in all its facets is a breeding ground for error. It is in the diversity of opinion that we keep each other within the way. Only the very decidedly closed can wander too far astray. But as your position is that you have the truth and the only "unity," You are the most nearly destined for error. We may or may not have insignificant errors but are constantly reviewing. You are set and closed and have no way to consider your errors because you have turned you face from any who, while your brothers, have even the slightest difference of opinion.

We don't need to justify denominations from scripture any more than we need to justify driving automobiles. There may be walls, but they are walls of rhetoric, not walls of differing faith. Meanwhile, your walls are absolute. You only seek to evangelize the world for your way. Never consider how you may have wandered into error.

Yet we find that there were churches that were not affected by these things that continued all the way into this century. Churches that were separated from the others almost from the beginning.

These mysterious and hidden churches only exist in your imagination. They did not give us the doctrine of the Trinity, the canon of Scripture, the Nicene creed etc. Standards and uniformity were attempted since the beginning, they continue today in the fact that if a church does not believe in the Trinity they are not considered Christian (JW etc). Your Bible (the Canon) is standardised, your belief in the Trinity is thanks to uniformity and standardisation of a view about God.

You would speak against the attempts at uniformity and standardisation by the local churches yet ignore the fact that your faith today is somewhat due to past achievements in uniformity and standardisation of old.

aron

11-09-2016, 05:43 AM

I agree with the point that just calling yourself "the church in ...." in and of itself does not bring the blessing of oneness if there is no real oneness.
On the other hand, calling your congregation the church of the mousekateers will not either.

Drake,

Welcome aboard the discussion forum, officially.

Calling oneself the church in this or that doesn't necessitate God's blessing. Either The Church In Chicago or the First Baptist Church in Chicago. Certainly names can be a distraction. There is only one name, variously translated as Yeshua, Jesus, Hay'-soos, Iosoos, or whatnot.

But even gathering as The Church of Jesus (i.e. the "my church" of Matt 16:18) or conversely The Church of Christ doesn't guarantee anything. Nor does gathering in Meeting Hall A, B, and C. Or the College-age meeting at Sister Jones' House, or the Saturday Morning Prayer Meeting. And remember that if you want to be "by the book", the first century word for "meeting" was also ekklesia.

So the proliferation of denominations happened. The Great Schism of 1054 happened. The Council of Nicaea happened. Nee's return to the Year One pulled in a lot of people in the mainland China, who wanted the influence of the Foreign Devils to end (remember that the Boxer Rebellion was such an event in the lives of Nee and Lee's families, as in many, many Chinese Christians). And Lee's return to the Proper Church of the apostolic age pulled in a lot of seeking Jesus People who were tired of the same old, same old. But Nee's and Lee's solution is to me like Pol Pot taking over in Cambodia. Yes, Prince Sihanouk was corrupt, under the Western Powers, who were impinging upon the millennia-old Asian culture. But what was the result of Pol Pot's return to the Year Zero? The killing fields.

The local church of Lee was and is, for me, such a spiritual charnel house. I don't approve of denominations, but I accept them as a fact of history, and believe they're preferable to the alternative that Lee gave us. God is sovereign.

Drake

11-12-2016, 09:03 AM

Thanks for the official welcome aron.

Perhaps your capping of nouns is an artifact of your native language. However, in English caps are reserved for proper nouns and therefore take on a different significance. For example you use "Proper Church".

Also, the dark examples you use are misrepresentations, do not create an accurate understanding, and so I do not have the heart to unpack what could otherwise be a meaningful conversation about this important topic.

Thanks
Drake

aron

11-12-2016, 10:34 AM

in English caps are reserved for proper nouns and therefore take on a different significance. For example you use "Proper Church".

Apostle of the Age. Capitalized because there is only one proper apostle of the age, which was Witness Lee (per LSM). Here, convention has made it a proper noun so I capitalized it. It only has one implied meaning. Just like the White House: there are many white houses, but the term is given to the one on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C. It's understood by convention, thus caps are ok, customary even.

Likewise, in LC discussion only one God's Economy will do, only one Vision of the Age, etc; capital letters reference the commonly-held LC meaning.

Also, the dark examples you use are misrepresentations, do not create an accurate understanding, and so I do not have the heart to unpack what could otherwise be a meaningful conversation about this important topic.

Thanks
Drake

Witness Lee started the conversation, saying Christianity is devilish, satanic, fallen, dark, twisted, deformed, and so on. He unpacked that particular valise. I'm continuing the discussion, saying that his local churches are, spiritually-speaking, charnel houses, which are full of dead men's bones neatly arranged in supposedly proper order, like museum displays. But with no life.

Perhaps a more prosaic analogy will be less threatening: there was an old lady who swallowed a fly. . . every time she tried to remedy the problem, however real the problem was, and however good and noble her intentions, the problem got worse. I made analogy of Prince Sihanouk, by most accounts a lazy slob and lackey of Western imperialists. But the native Cambodian solution was arguably far worse.

To me that's Witness Lee and the Living Stream Ministry, Continuing Steadfastly, Full-Time Training, One Trumpet, the Lord's Move to Europe, Christians on Campus, Vital Groups, etc vis-à-vis the dreaded "denominations". Sorry if I'm too colourful in description, but again this doesn't depart from the colourful descriptions of Lee by much if at all.

Trapped

11-09-2018, 11:35 PM

Someone has rightly said that Witness Lee has merely changed the "one man speaking" in every congregation to the "speaking of one man" in every local church.

This is very true. Yes, denominational and community churches have the speaking of one man, the pastor, but is that not far better than to have the speaking of only Witness Lee in every Local Church? I think so.

WOW! This is a great post of Ohio's. I want to make it a sign and frame it.

Trapped

03-16-2019, 05:06 PM

I think one church one city is legit.

But let me explain.

I think the lesson of the majority of the references to the church being “the church in {city}” in the Bible is so we would get it hammered into our heads that all the believers in a city are the church in that city. LSM rolls that line out when it is needed to soften their hardline stance, and I fully believe it in the softened sense. All the believers in a city are the church in that city. All the believers in Seattle are the church in Seattle. All the believers in Paris are the church which is in Paris. Regardless of where they meet in the city, all the believers are the church there. That’s the oneness. They all have the common life of Christ and they are thus all the church. The city is a great choice to get this point across because a city forms the natural boundaries of the people who you will deal with and run into in your daily life. It’s difficult to get built up or close to anyone who is in another city. Anything smaller like a neighborhood or a street is limiting; anything larger isn’t practical according to typical daily life. A city seems to pretty steadily throughout history (okay, I’m speaking as non-historian here) represent the typical boundaries of the group of people you will interact with on a semi-regular basis.

But this truth is an objective truth. It is not a truth that disappears if there are multiple gatherings in a city. In other words, even if there are various assemblies, that doesn’t take away from the objective truth that they are all still the church. I do think this is a great concept that would do well to be spread. I may be wrong, but I think some Christians live according to this without having had the explicit thought, and that there is benefit to this truth being more widespread. It may illuminate someone who already lives that way, it may give someone an awareness and warmness towards his fellow brothers and sisters that he didn’t have before just because he never thought about it, or it may change people who formerly viewed other denominations negatively but who came to see that we are all part of the same Body. I think this teaching as stated thus far is good.

Someone else on this forum (Igzy maybe? Others too maybe) noted that there isn’t a whole lot of detail in the Bible about the church gatherings……but there is a lot about the individual’s responsibilities regarding his own behavior and his treatment of others. There is also nothing in the Bible that talks about the “practical expression of the church.” This, I believe, is one large area where the LC’s went wrong in this “doctrine”. They had to create this extra layer of specialness called “the practical expression” of the church to separate and uplift themselves. (Of course, I also believe this is a smokescreen for “you don’t read W. Lee”, but that’s a tangent). They often say, “okay, where is the practical expression of this?” But the Bible doesn’t talk about some “practical expression” that everyone else who is driving by on the street can point to. The practical expression of the church is not a group of people hidden away in a unmarked beige building sitting on gold chairs reading the words of two Chinese men. The practical expression of the church is in our living. We are the church. So the practical expression of the church is in how each of us lives, treats others, and takes care of others.

For all their trumpeting of the practical expression of the church, the LC’s as a system really miss the actual practical expression of it.

Okay. So all the believers in a city are the church in that city. The problem is, even if there was one entire massive unified church in New York City, the realities of the physical world would end up dictating that they all group up and meet in different assemblies. So for example, in a city of 1 million, let’s say there are 370,000 meeting Christians. (I googled how many Christians attend church in America, and the result was 37%. Let’s go with that for example’s sake). This would require four Astrodomes to accommodate one combined meeting of the church, and about 0.0001 of them could function in a 2-hour meeting. The eldership would have to consist of something like 8,000-10,000 elders. And the church would have to own a gigantic arena just to have the weekly elders’ meetings. Oh yeah, which means most elders couldn’t function or have input.

So the more probable thing would happen, which is that the saints would divide up into smaller groups based on location or common burden. And those elders would divide up into smaller groups based on location or common burden around the city too. (I just googled the average population of a U.S. city, and it said 20,000….not 1,000,000. Okay, 37% of 20,000 is 7,400 Christians. Which would need maybe 200 elders. The same thing would still happen but with less astrodomes.) So there would be small groups of elders caring for these smaller assemblies around the city. And in order for everyone to know where on earth to go, those assemblies would take on certain names that include information additional to the name of the city. In other words, over time, the “names” (de-name-inations as Evangelical used to love to say) are going to come in simply as a function of the realities of life. These names already come in to describe smaller assemblies of the local churches during the week. So I don’t see a difference between:

Monday lunch sisters’ gathering at the Smith’s
Jones’ home prayer meeting
Chang’s Friday night home meeting
District #1’s prophesying meeting
Northview Church in Gary, Indiana
Portland Point Community Assembly

Much to LCer’s horror, they might be terrified to realize that those prayer meeting and home meeting descriptions (required to have any chance of finding the location of the gathering) have THE NAME OF ANOTHER PERSON BESIDES THE LORD IN THEM. And yet they say it without batting an eye.

So whether we got names the way that actually happened, or whether we got names by trying to do it as I described and unavoidable real life came in, we have different names. The names just tell you where on earth to go to get to a gathering of believers and aren’t a cause of division unless those believers refuse to meet with other believers when called to do so. And it’s not the names that cause division. It’s the attitude of the people who meet there that does. Does this still happen today? Yeah. Is that a problem? Yeah. Are the LCs part of that problem? Yeah.

(It just hit me like a ton of bricks that the local church is so upside down that it calls meeting with “other” Christians DIVISIVE. Wrap your head around that for a second. The local churches CALL COMING TOGETHER WITH THEIR FELLOW BELIEVERS “DIVISION”. How on earth have I swallowed that one for so long?!?! If that doesn’t do you in, nothing will.)

Anyway, I don’t think I’ve said anything particularly new or groundbreaking (pun not intended), but I’ve been ruminating on it for a while and just had to put my thoughts all together in one place.

Trapped

P.S. Totally unrelated topic but my mind is jumping around …… I wonder if PSRP went by the wayside because the “S” part (study) made people actually study the points and look up the verses and realize that the verse references cited for different things didn’t actually match up with the “truth” being propagated?!

Nell

03-16-2019, 09:08 PM

I think one church one city is legit.

But let me explain.
...

Prescriptive vs. Descriptive
The first time I heard this concept explained as the proper way to interpret scripture, made so much sense, I began to apply it to every teaching that comes along. I also look at all of Witness Lee's teachings through this prism.

https://www.gotquestions.org/descriptive-vs-prescriptive.html

"When studying the Bible, it is important to determine whether the verse or passage at hand is descriptive or prescriptive. The difference is this: a passage is descriptive if it is simply describing something that happened, while a passage is prescriptive if it is specifically teaching that something should happen. Simply put, is it a description or a command? Is the passage describing something (it happened) or is it prescribing something (it should happen)? The difference is important. When a biblical passage is only describing something but is interpreted as prescribing something, it can lead to errant thinking and behavior."

When John addressed the churches in the Revelation by the city in which they were located, was he simply describing the churches by their location because that's the way it existed in the day, or was he saying for now and eternity, there should ONLY be one church in one city?

It's a good idea to do some reading about prescriptive and descriptive passages in the Bible. I doubt that Lee did that. He built an empire around his prescription for OC/OC. It seems that the church did exist in cities in the days when the scriptures were written, but was that to be the mandatory pattern for eternity? I don't think the scripture is clear on that point. The scriptures don't forbid it, but neither does it appear to prescribe OC/OC.

Nell

Ohio

03-16-2019, 09:41 PM

An anonymous poster once provided an excellent exposition on the forum concerning oc/oc. I'll dig it up if you're interested. It covered all the scripture, not just the churches in revelation.

Nell

03-16-2019, 09:54 PM

An anonymous poster once provided an excellent exposition on the forum concerning oc/oc. I'll dig it up if you're interested. It covered all the scripture, not just the churches in revelation.

Yes please. I'm interested...

Trapped

03-16-2019, 10:14 PM

(explanation up front: when I say "the church in [city]", I am not referring to the local churches).

Nell, I agree with you that it is descriptive and not prescriptive. "Do this until I come" or "and you do the same" could easily have been present in relation to describing the churches, but it glaringly wasn't.

But not only is it descriptive, I also think that it is still an objective fact today, albeit manifested in a different way than what was described in the Bible. I am pretty sure I know what exposition Ohio referred to in his post prior to this one (Ohio you are welcome to repost as it is an excellent one), and IIRC, it brings up the matter of "the church in [so and so's house]" in the Bible. Even though those house churches existed, in my view, it doesn't take away from the objective fact that on the city-level, the church in [city] is all the believers in that city, which includes the house churches and any other assemblies that met. The church in [house] describes a smaller level, and the church in [city] just describes a larger version of that thing.

The church in Houston exists at this very moment, and it is not on MLK Boulevard (or wherever). It is not one group of people in one specific place. It is all the believers in Houston. In other words, it's not that there "should be" one church in Houston. There is right now. All the believers are the church in Houston. It's an objective fact, regardless of if a single one of those believers is aware of it. That's kind of what I was trying to say.

Maybe a better way to say it is that it is a mindset that we should have ("that they all may be one"). It is not.......I don't know what the word is...tangible? You can't necessarily point to it - "the church in Houston is right over there". It just is (in the divine realm, if you want me to use an LC-type phrase to try to clarify). But if you want to see the actual expression of the church in [a city], it is just in our living and treating of each other and others.

Trapped

03-17-2019, 02:56 AM

I think what I'm trying to say is that I think it's legit not as a practice, but as the understanding of a spiritual reality.

Ohio

03-17-2019, 06:38 AM

I am pretty sure I know what exposition Ohio referred to in his post prior to this one (Ohio you are welcome to repost as it is an excellent one), and IIRC, it brings up the matter of "the church in [so and so's house]" in the Bible.

Here is a link to that referenced post. (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=17714&postcount=201)

Here is the conclusion to that article ...

One final point is just to look at our history. Anybody remotely honest among us will agree that we have tended towards exclusiveness. We have set ourselves apart from other Christians and elevated ourselves as being "unique". Your conscience knows that this is wrong. This is the fruit that has been produced. The Bible says to look at the fruit. Examine yourself. How do you feel about other Christians? Do you automatically assume that they are off? I know I am guilty of this. But as the "ground" truth gets dismantled piece by piece I am experiencing a freedom related to my other brothers and sisters in Christ. It is wonderful when you don't have to assume every other Christian you meet is somehow "off". The Bible says that the truth sets us free, and I am experiencing an unbelievable freedom. Hallelujah!

Even the most pure forms of the “local ground” teaching are inherently exclusive. Even if your view is that all the believers in the city are the church in that city and you simply say you are taking a “stand” as the church in the city. In its very nicest form, we would say that others just have not yet seen who they are and they are living according to what they see. However we try to avoid it, the implication is that the proper boundary is the city and others should come into the vision of “one church, one city”. Even the purest form has its basis in the “ground of locality” teaching. I believe the six points above have effectively dismantled this teaching to show that it has no scriptural authority. We should neither bind ourselves nor others to a teaching that is based on many assumptions, or at best a pattern without apostolic mandate. To insist on a non-authoritative practical implementation would undermine the higher principles of love and oneness taught directly by the Lord. This piece was written to correct some of the flaws in David Canfield's article, which is the opening post for this thread. Canfield wrote this in the aftermath of the Midwest quarantines. He subscribed to Titus Chu's views, which I have simplistically labeled as "WL good -- Blendeds bad."

Canfield and other saints have started another "church in Chicago" which did not side with the Chicago region, which sided with the Blendeds against Titus Chu. The divisions were all political in nature, rooted in offenses, using the Bible to endorse their skewed viewpoints.

Cal

03-17-2019, 09:39 AM

I think what I'm trying to say is that I think it's legit not as a practice, but as the understanding of a spiritual reality.

I agree with this. The church in the city is similar to the universal church, it is all the believers in that city. But the bible never says they all have to meet together, nor especially that they all have to be under one group of tightly coordinated leaders. The instance of house churches strongly suggests this.

This can be easily shown by simply asking "How do you determine who these leaders are?" The LR elders just say it's them, and that's it. Really? How does anyone really know? So, you just can't get to there from here, and so you have to give people the freedom to make up their own minds. It can't be forced, and certainly no one group of leaders gets to claim it exclusively.

And the Bible never, ever says that Christians have to meet "as" the church in the city. It only says we are to meet in Jesus' name. Period. Requiring that they meet "as" the church in the city to be the church and claim the realities of the church is a false teaching. Period.

It's absolutely absurd for any subset of the church in a city to say that Christians who don't meet with THEM are divisive. It's ridiculous and really should be laughed at.

Cal

03-17-2019, 10:20 AM

Another issue is the false dichotomy of the Church and Ministry put forth by Nee and Lee. Churches and ministries are all part of the Church, but different manifestations of it. There are no realities of the Church which are not available to Christians within the context of a ministry.

This dichotomy Nee and Lee invented is actually a misreading of the FREEDOM that exists in the Church and the Body of Christ. Christians are free to serve God in ministry as they feel called. And it is all part of the Church. In like manner, Christians have the right to organize in churches as they see fit. If they are faithful to the Holy Spirit, exclusiveness and divisiveness will not become a problem, and proper receiving of all believers will be their experience, and oneness will be the result.

God has called us to freedom. The LR model is all about bondage. It's about control. It's about claiming exclusively for a subset of the Church what God has given to all of us, and is a major sin.

aron

03-17-2019, 04:51 PM

The church in Houston exists at this very moment, and it is not on MLK Boulevard (or wherever). It is not one group of people in one specific place... It is not.......I don't know what the word is...tangible? You can't necessarily point to it - "the church in Houston is right over there". It just is (in the divine realm, if you want me to use an LC-type phrase to try to clarify).

Back in the day, I was in a meeting where the ministry mouthpiece did what was supposed to be a mic drop. They asked rhetorically, "If God was going to send a letter to a church in [the city] today, where would He send it?"

Like there was supposed to be an actual, tangible, physical street address, and since we [LC] have taken the ground of oneness, we have a real physical address where we "meet on the proper ground". I guess that was the point. Like, we in the LC can get the letter to the church in [the city]. That old old LC bugaboo - you just can't be "one" in principle, but you have to be one "practically".

Anyway, some not-so-bright brother or sister, who didn't realize that reading the actual text was bad form, asked, "But look! It doesn't say, 'To the church in [the city]', but 'To the angel of the church in [the city]'... what about that? Who is the angel?"

The reply was, "Oh, that's just the messenger. You don't need to pay any attention to that."

Right.

Revelation 1:1 "The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,"

Revelation 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright Morning Star."

Just ignore the angel, uhuh... besides, the angel probably knows the street address already! (Our street address!) Uh, yeah, okay... really weak argumentation if you ask me. On such tenuous reeds was built the LC edifice.

Canfield and other saints have started another "church in Chicago" which did not side with the Chicago region...This brings up the obvious question: How many one-church-per-city churches can exist simultaneously in one city? More than one, apparently. Exclusive Brethren redux - when will we ever learn?

Cal

03-17-2019, 06:52 PM

Perhaps he had to send it to an angel (messenger) precisely because there WAS NO ONE ADDRESS of the church in the city, and need a messenger to deliver it to all the places it needed to go. Hmmmmmm? Which would mean the text is actually making the counter argument to the LR argument, which is pretty funny!

I think just got another MOTA idea from the messenger, aron. :angel6: :woohoo:

awareness

03-17-2019, 09:12 PM

For all their trumpeting of the practical expression of the church,
I think the proper term for that is : Puffery. It's used in advertising and sales pitching all the time, and you can't believe any of it. It works on the simple-minded, the ignorant, and on suckers.

Ohio

03-18-2019, 07:16 AM

Someone else on this forum (Igzy maybe? Others too maybe) noted that there isn’t a whole lot of detail in the Bible about the church gatherings……but there is a lot about the individual’s responsibilities regarding his own behavior and his treatment of others. There is also nothing in the Bible that talks about the “practical expression of the church.” This, I believe, is one large area where the LC’s went wrong in this “doctrine”. They had to create this extra layer of specialness called “the practical expression” of the church to separate and uplift themselves.

But the Bible doesn’t talk about some “practical expression” that everyone else who is driving by on the street can point to. The practical expression of the church is not a group of people hidden away in a unmarked beige building sitting on gold chairs reading the words of two Chinese men. The practical expression of the church is in our living. We are the church. So the practical expression of the church is in how each of us lives, treats others, and takes care of others.

This is a great point by Trapped heretofore unsaid, at least according to my poor memory.

Let me repeat. "The practical expression of the church is not a group of people hidden away in a unmarked beige building sitting on gold chairs reading the words of two Chinese men. The practical expression of the church is in our living."

The "practical expression of the church" should be defined by the story of the Bible, not be a twisted interpretation. This is similar to the one day I was reading I Cor. 12. Paul spoke to the church in Corinth in much detail about the "practical expression of the church" being exhibited among them, even in their Lord's Table meetings. Suddenly I realized how Lee had twisted the teaching, "many members, but one body." To the Apostle Paul this was on a local level. It referred to the individual behavior of the members of the church. Lee, however, over an extended period of time, changed the meaning here. It became "many LC's, but one body." The implicit and very explicit message from Lee was simple: the relationship of LC's to LSM was far more important that their personal living. Personal sins were all forgivable, but "church sins" will get you permanently excommunicated. LC history repeatedly has proven this.

Thus the "oneness of the body" had forever morphed into something unrecognizable to scripture. It took on a Roman Catholic flavor. Our personal walk with the Lord was replaced by strict adherence to an Anaheim Book Publisher. This, in essence, is what the mid-80's "NEW WAY" was all about. I lived thru that. I was thoroughly deceived. How did we let that happen?

Ohio

03-18-2019, 07:19 AM

Perhaps he had to send it to an angel (messenger) precisely because there WAS NO ONE ADDRESS of the church in the city, and need a messenger to deliver it to all the places it needed to go. Hmmmmmm? Which would mean the text is actually making the counter argument to the LR argument, which is pretty funny!

Oh the irony!

Dismantling the House of Cards, one Joker at a time.

Cal

03-18-2019, 08:46 AM

Ohio

03-18-2019, 09:13 AM

All good stuff, brothers and sisters!

Another problem with the idea "practical expression"--which is actually being brought out here but I want to clarify--is that it can become a weapon for discrediting everyone else. This is what the LR did. They simply defined "practical expression" in such a way so only they matched the definition. This definition centered around their view of "oneness," which was really nothing but conformity to their leaders.

I remember one "crisis" moment. The elders were gone to headquarters, and I was left responsible for the Lord's Day meeting. After the Table, of course, the meeting was open to all for "prophesying." Things went quite well until an out-of-town LC guest stood, and questioned whether or not we used the Holy Word for Morning Revival.

There was a momentary panic in my heart. The room went silent. How should I answer? The elders were gone. If I say "no," then this visitor will become an undercover agent to report us back to Anaheim. We lived in days of suspicion and spying about one another's adherence to the oneness, which was really "oneness with a ministry," or oneness with man. We had such "spies" within and without. (Eventually some of our own saints even turned on us.)

Then the Lord came through. He put a thought in my heart. I smiled and looked at the guest and said, "sure, we use that too." The guest was satisfied apparently, and life continued. I had succeeded in kicking the phony "practical oneness" can down the street. Only to be revisited again. And again.

Cal

03-18-2019, 09:13 AM

The LR has never recognized any church which met as the church in the city which did not join the fold of the LR. This shows that the local ground is really just a "first line of defense" in discrediting groups. The second line of defense is saying the church "is not in fellowship" with other LCs, which really means not submitting to LSM. So basically their view is if you don't follow LSM you can't be a church. As Trapped said, wrapped your head around that for a minute!

As Ohio has brought out many times, the local ground is really not a huge deal in the LR anymore. Conformity to LSM has replaced it as the key factor in being a proper church. The local ground is just a leftover teaching which the LR conveniently uses to convince members that they are right and everyone else is wrong. But the crucial factor now is obedience to LSM, which is proven by the fact that the LR has never respected any group meeting as the church in a city which doesn't genuflect to LSM.

Trapped

03-18-2019, 01:36 PM

The "practical expression of the church" should be defined by the story of the Bible, not be a twisted interpretation. This is similar to the one day I was reading I Cor. 12. Paul spoke to the church in Corinth in much detail about the "practical expression of the church" being exhibited among them, even in their Lord's Table meetings. Suddenly I realized how Lee had twisted the teaching, "many members, but one body." To the Apostle Paul this was on a local level. It referred to the individual behavior of the members of the church. Lee, however, over an extended period of time, changed the meaning here. It became "many LC's, but one body." The implicit and very explicit message from Lee was simple: the relationship of LC's to LSM was far more important that their personal living.

This actually touches on a topic I had on my mental back burner. I had an interaction with an elder one time where he talked about needing to check with "the brothers" (in Anaheim) about a certain local matter. I can't remember what it was, but it was something banal, like having a particular meeting, or possibly having a conference that involved a few churches. It was not a serious situation, like the implosion of a bunch of churches. I asked, "why do you need to check with them if this is something that doesn't actually involve them?" The elders' hesitated for a second and then said, "Well, it's good to get the feeling of the Body."

Of course, this means "check with Anaheim" but, me, always hesitant of that baby/bathwater thing, couldn't help but wonder if there is any Biblical precedent for this before throwing it out as "nonsense". I love what you say that the members/Body are described by Paul on the local level. It makes so much sense to "get the feeling of the Body" on the local level, in your own church. Are there any instances in the Bible where "get the feeling of the Body" on a larger-than-local level could be argued for?

Cal

03-18-2019, 02:31 PM

Are there any instances in the Bible where "get the feeling of the Body" on a larger-than-local level could be argued for?

You NEVER "get the feeling of the Body." If you did you would just take a vote and go with the majority.

What you do is have fellowship with other Christians and try to hear the Lord's speaking.

The Lord's speaking can be aligned with everyone else's opinion, or it can be completely contrary. Imagine if Martin Luther had been interested in the "feeling of the Body." No Reformation! Imagine if Nathan had been swayed by the "feeling of the Body." Rebuke King David? I don't think so! Imagine if Paul had listened to the "feeling of the Body." Get rid of of ALL Jewish ordinances? The council in Jerusalem isn't going to like that!

What makes dealing with and figuring out the LR so difficult is they set up false standards of behavior then get you distracted wondering how to apply standards that are false in the first place!

Just follow the Lord! It is wise to seek counsel, but ultimately you have to go with him, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

"No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest." Heb 8:11

aron

03-18-2019, 03:10 PM

"Get the feeling of the Body" really means, "check with HQ." But you can't say the latter because it doesn't sound very mystical does it? Plus, there is supposedly no hierarchy so there can be no HQ.

But there it is.

I've told the story of an elder who tried to hold a regional conference after WL passed. LSM got wind of it when he called them up & tried to order 300 of a certain title. The Blendeds told him, "Re-speak the latest conference". I'll never forget the look on his face when he heard that. Sadness, discouragement, even disgust. At that point he'd been following WL's ministry longer than many of his new masters in Anaheim.

Only Jesus Christ knows the feeling of the Body. Anyone else who presumes that will bring ruin. Of such Paul said, "We would not bear them; no, not even for an instant."

Kevin

03-18-2019, 03:31 PM

My study of Scripture have led me to leave the movement. But not until that the administration of local elders went wickedly that driven me to leave immediately. Many times, I have attempted to reach out the LCers. Sadly, they have to stay away from me, for they must follow the teachings of Witness Lee and are not willing, usually, to compare Scripture to the teaching of Witness Lee. If they did, they would leave also. But thankfully, at least two people who are now with me have left the system.

There is no biblical basis for the idea about "the ground of the church". Basically, if one does not follow Witness Lee they are considered outsiders. They may be saved but they are said to be living in error.

Yes, in the early church it was, "the Church in Corinth" or "the Church in Ephesus," etc. No denominations. But Witness Lee has created his own "church" on his own "ground" and there is no biblical basis for it.

The bottom line is: Be like the Bereans, study the Word. Don't follow men, follow the Word.

Kevin

03-18-2019, 03:39 PM

They have this superstitious belief that if you leave the ground, bad things will happen to you. They are stuck in that system of error.

The most disappointing event is that this elder has unashamedly accused my current church as spiritual fornicator. :mad3: *typical cultic-behavior

Kevin

03-18-2019, 04:14 PM

Are there any instances in the Bible where "get the feeling of the Body" on a larger-than-local level could be argued for?

Here's an article what they meant by "get feeling of the Body".
Taking Christ’s Feeling as our Feeling and having the Consciousness of the Body
(https://www.agodman.com/blog/taking-christs-feeling-our-having-consciousness-body/?fbclid=IwAR0thc2wVIi_YMITI_UYhQYXZCk3_SuEPyS7KXVP NI5obXKqYjbol08Gcjc)

Ohio

03-18-2019, 05:44 PM

This actually touches on a topic I had on my mental back burner. I had an interaction with an elder one time where he talked about needing to check with "the brothers" (in Anaheim) about a certain local matter. I can't remember what it was, but it was something banal, like having a particular meeting, or possibly having a conference that involved a few churches. It was not a serious situation, like the implosion of a bunch of churches. I asked, "why do you need to check with them if this is something that doesn't actually involve them?" The elders' hesitated for a second and then said, "Well, it's good to get the feeling of the Body."

Of course, this means "check with Anaheim" but, me, always hesitant of that baby/bathwater thing, couldn't help but wonder if there is any Biblical precedent for this before throwing it out as "nonsense". I love what you say that the members/Body are described by Paul on the local level. It makes so much sense to "get the feeling of the Body" on the local level, in your own church. Are there any instances in the Bible where "get the feeling of the Body" on a larger-than-local level could be argued for?
There is support for circulating the apostolic epistles around the churches. Ephesians, for example, could be a circular letter. In his conclusion to Colosse, Paul exhorts them to exchange letters with Laodicea (Col 4.15-16) which btw we do not have. John's letters in Rev 2-3 were also circulated. It is interesting to note that the towns of Ephesus to Laodicea followed a well-traveled route, which some have said formed a rainbow in shape. Next in line was Colossae and Hierapolis, had there been 8 or 9 letters in total.

Concerning "the feeling of the body" according to Lee, this teaching is entirely manufactured with the goal to force compliance with headquarters. Who is qualified to "know" this feeling. Scripturally and practically speaking this should uniquely be the Head of the body leading the elders and the gifted brothers who are with the saints. How in the world could those in Anaheim know the needs in Cleveland, Ohio? Compare Paul's letters to Corinth and Galatia. Their needs were diametrically opposed.

When it comes to the ministry of the word concerning the truths of the faith, there is ground to bring congregations together to benefit from certain gifted members. But Lee once said that the local elders had enough "authority" to choose what time to have a church prayer meeting. Seriously? This is why many have rightly said that LC elders have become only franchise managers. Thus Podunk, Nowheresville has the exact same "menu" as the megatropolis of NYC.

The N.T. shows us a continued battled between Gentile Evangelists and Judaizers sent out from Jerusalem. Initially they battled over circumcision, apparently resolved in Acts 15, yet really never was until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The "feeling of the body" should be guided by the Spirit, by the new covenant, and by righteousness. Look at every case in the N.T., they were all guided in this way.

Ohio

03-18-2019, 05:57 PM

I've told the story of an elder who tried to hold a regional conference after WL passed. LSM got wind of it when he called them up & tried to order 300 of a certain title. The Blendeds told him, "Re-speak the latest conference". I'll never forget the look on his face when he heard that. Sadness, discouragement, even disgust. At that point he'd been following WL's ministry longer than many of his new masters in Anaheim.

This was similar to my last meeting with "the brothers." Since Chicago sided with LSM prior to the official quarantines, TC sent all their FT-ers to TC-friendly locales. The one we got came in and decided to shake things up. In his own words, "sometimes we need to shock the saints." Huh?

Being with the saints of different ages, I knew they wanted to all come together for the Lord's Table meeting. The new "master" from Chicago said, "No, we need numerous "intimate" LT meetings instead." I protested. What the heck is an "intimate" meeting to remember the Lord? Thus we had 3 saints breaking bread in the dining room while another group was vacuuming the carpet. Real intimate! They looked electrocuted. Sadness, discouragement, even disgust.

Kevin

03-19-2019, 09:52 PM

Here is a link to that referenced post. (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=17714&postcount=201)

Here is the conclusion to that article ...

This piece was written to correct some of the flaws in David Canfield's article, which is the opening post for this thread. Canfield wrote this in the aftermath of the Midwest quarantines. He subscribed to Titus Chu's views, which I have simplistically labeled as "WL good -- Blendeds bad."

Unregistered Guest: 2) Where 2 or 3 gather there I am in the midst" = the church. One practical way (not necessarily the only way) to achieve oneness in this paradigm is in having separate assemblies with separate administrations holding to unity of "the faith" (Eph 4:13)

Matthew 18:15-17, 20 NASB
15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector 20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

That verse is taken out of context. Isn't the context of that passage about Church discipline than saying Jesus showing up or being "in our midst?" That church discipline is about keeping people IN the Church, but on God's terms and to the purity of the body.

Trapped

05-16-2019, 11:53 PM

In Further Talks on the Church Life, Nee answers some questions about the church in a city and the church in a house:

Question: Some say that since Paul sent greetings to the church in Rome as well as to the church in a house, this signifies that there was not only a local church but also a church in a house. Are there not, therefore, two churches?

Answer: Let us consider the matter slowly. I fear that you have not listened to the word of God carefully. The book of Romans never speaks of “the church in Rome.” How then could the apostle have greeted the church in Rome? The book of Romans does not present clearly in writing one greeting to “the church in Rome” and another greeting to “the church in the house.” But in greeting the church in the house of Prisca and Aquila, it is implied that such a greeting is to the church in Rome, which was meeting in Prisca and Aquila’s house. Hence, the church in Rome was the church in Prisca and Aquila’s house.....

I think Nee's answer starts out pretty disingenuously to be honest. He begins by casting immediate doubt on the questioners reading skills, which is a sure sign some manipulation is coming. But if you read Romans, while it is true the explicit phrase "the church in Rome" isn't used, Romans 1:7 clearly says "To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, the called saints". Who in earth is that if not the church in Rome?

So Romans is clearly to the church in Rome, whether or not that exact phrase is used. But Romans 16:3-5 says "Greet Prisca and Aquila......And greet the church, which is in their house."

Hold on. Why would a letter TO the church in Rome itself instruct them to greet the church in a house if the entire church in Rome met in that house (as Nee and Lee purport)?

That would be like writing a letter to the Johnson family and telling the Johnson family to greet the Johnson family. It doesn't make any sense. If you write a letter to someone and tell them to greet someone, by default, that second someone is in some way a different entity than the first someone.

I know it's strange since there are other good arguments out there, but for me personally this is the best thing I've come across so far to negate the OCOC edict. This tells me the church in P&A's house was NOT the entire church in Rome, and thus city = church is not the "ground of the church" and the LCs are thus holding tightly onto a non-essential.

ZNPaaneah

05-17-2019, 06:34 AM

I know it's strange since there are other good arguments out there, but for me personally this is the best thing I've come across so far to negate the OCOC edict. This tells me the church in P&A's house was NOT the entire church in Rome, and thus city = church is not the "ground of the church" and the LCs are thus holding tightly onto a non-essential.

The interpretation of the "one church one city" as all the people in a single meeting hall is absurd and has no Biblical support. The church in Taipei had 26 meeting halls when I was there, so a single large meeting hall is not an item of our oneness. Paul gives 7 items for our oneness in Ephesians. The seven ones. Meeting hall and Elders are not mentioned.

But lets address the whole "one eldership" derivative argument as an expression of oneness. The elders are supposed to be local, there is no overarching organizational structure according to WN's interpretation and he is the only one putting forth this "one church one city" doctrine. Making the elders in all the 26 halls come under an umbrella organization is contrary to WN's entire construct.

Second, if you have the 7 ones in Ephesians then what could possibly cause you to not be one with another congregation with those 7 ones? Tell us the issue and we'll immediately see who is not one.

Third, they argue that the apostle laid hands on them, so they are under the apostle. You are creating a division. Surely they are not envisioning a single apostle that evangelizes the entire world over the last 2,000 years. Since we have multiple apostles how is it that we don't have multiple churches? Simple, apostle is not listed as one of the seven ones.

The value in WN's doctrine is that it forces us to see that the oneness of the church, the believers, and all those in a city is important, and it also forces us to go to the word to know the truth. If you can see the error in his teaching clearly then you have a clear vision of the oneness of the Body of Christ.

Ohio

05-17-2019, 09:19 AM

I would ask the OCOC supporters to define a "city."

There is no way that the description of "city" in the New Testament can match our contemporary definition. Look at NY "City." It's larger than the entire nation of Israel. NYC is really hundreds or thousands of "cities" as the word is used in the NT.

The most we can say about the OCOC doctrine of Nee is that the Apostle John "described" it in Rev 2 and 3. No NT writer ever "prescribed" it for church practice, including John. Not only did Paul not follow the "official" church naming practice sanctioned by Nee, but on several occasions Paul's letters refute it.

As one writer has said, we have far more instruction for head covering in the meetings than for OCOC. Why do the LCs not mandate that?

ZNPaaneah

05-17-2019, 07:23 PM

awareness

05-17-2019, 08:55 PM

byHismercy

05-18-2019, 08:07 PM

One church one city is not only non essential doctrine, it is a non issue to the Lord. This doctrine comes from another source. If the Lord Christ desires we all be one as He and the Father are one, you better believe Satan is is sitting on his wee, sad, doomed to burn in hell forever throne sending all his minions out to confuse and confound believers with lying doctrine which results in the exact opposite of the Lords' desire......DIVISION....SEPARATION.....and the INABILITY to have real ONENESS. Which of course has become the Local Church fruit. It makes me mad and sad, and frustrated. How will we ever be one in Jesus with the Local Church believers when they have this bizarre culture of total silence? The saints in my life shut the door on all communication, with the exception being the peculiar attempt at communication without actually acknowledging a single word I said. What kind of fun new game is this, anyway? It all smacks of the enemies' tricks to me. Maybe some think my opinion is extreme but who else would be clapping his evil hands and jumping up and down to see the body divided so? We are witnessing the spiritual warfare play out right before our spiritual eyes, are we not?

Lord Jesus, give us all Your love for each other, give us all Your eyes, Your wisdom, Your doctrine, Your ears, Your faith, and Your love for the Father. Amen.

byHismercy

ZNPaaneah

05-18-2019, 08:28 PM

byHismercy

05-18-2019, 08:41 PM

Yes, you shall know them by their fruit. What is the fruit of this doctrine? Oneness with all believers in the city? No, definitely not. Instead the fruit is a judgmental attitude that every other believer is in some kind of spiritual fornication, insulting the Lord, and that they would become tarnished spiritually if they had fellowship with them. Hence, it is not simply a heresy, but a damnable heresy.

Yes indeed. Damnable heresy. And I remember that arrogance on full display the very very last time I ever bothered to make that 30 plus mile drive down to town for a conference meeting being streamed at the home of some saints there. RK was ranting about how not everybody should pray. About how not all are qualified to pray. I was so shocked and offended at the speaking....I mentioned it to a couple of other sisters and they also disagreed, and couldn't really justify it nor talk about it with me. I think it was a real eye opener for me, that conference. I think it was Thanksgiving 2 years ago? Does anyone else remember that? I couldn't believe a man of God would believe what he was speaking....

Kevin

05-18-2019, 10:20 PM

byHismercy

05-18-2019, 11:08 PM

I've seen this 'One Church, one City' paradigm to be divisive and doublespeak of its implications in the attitudes and actions of the LC members. The inclusivity statements of Witness Lee might sound veracious at hand, but the truth is, when a lengthy assessment that contradict other radical statements of Lee's writings that actually suggests elitist exclusivism. It is liable to charge of being two-faced, that Christians in Christianity may be part of the universal church, but the other way around they are said to be living in error. It is illogical inconsistent, which has an implication of superiority over outsiders. Therefore, the teaching of the "ground of locality" is hypocritical at face value.

Hypocrisy is the word of the day. The word that best encapsulates The Ministry/Local Church. The realization coming out the other side was that it was all kinds of truth being spoken, the spoken agreement with one Spirit, one body, one Lord, one faith....all that was agreed with aloud. However the reality of those things is denied in actions.....it was a facade! How easily I was deceived. In word there was an agreement with scripture. But in reality, the faith in the misleading doctrine usurped the believers there from the pure word of God, the reality of the oneness of Spirit.

Kevin

05-18-2019, 11:13 PM

A tree is known by its fruit.

https://scontent.fcgy1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60498822_10214585998543915_7142256177722687488_n.j pg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_eui2=AeGADovwwb4vh47dUYMrafJP-4zeteShYJ7sSiR87fo1X2N4n4vwy7l5Hi6XahKuVQjnnT3t0Wh ZPFFLz6qQwhHe2Wf8N-Fr5c80tij8juhjyg&_nc_ht=scontent.fcgy1-1.fna&oh=5057bbf8b5b95a3991dd107239a8fc13&oe=5D5BC0C9

https://scontent.fcgy1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60425429_10214585998223907_5250365453687062528_n.j pg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_eui2=AeEbbZpaktKCfHQHgYApHIO1ixUrJEWbMVSesR-ro8sxsALAAJqDLnColhKu95jcnQuNYfIedkCQnDBJo1Qly_QTG swt2ywklLFut8PD1GampQ&_nc_ht=scontent.fcgy1-1.fna&oh=a45619176e618a93dbf93f1299adbf08&oe=5D9C263D

https://scontent.fcgy1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60682136_10214585998503914_7189163529901965312_n.j pg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_eui2=AeGppAqbJHaN3h9Q8zlUVkPAO3UZblzICMV7VRxYF Wwf7B6wAtCfHIvxVEuhnSrQLaEwFfxEzXr5UkEEhv7pqOVtb8C gcTLEoqsZ_orFwvBBSg&_nc_ht=scontent.fcgy1-1.fna&oh=920b0ef45158d72404491bdf783eab4c&oe=5D5D527D

https://scontent.fcgy1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60632123_10214585998983926_3550712006916964352_n.j pg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_eui2=AeGUoB1pNLDWG8sVdcYZb92vTW9StEYtyZIrdOw4C eUCh9Z4dUv9oz8f7sjQRiWn8Z-VE0tiBi_0O6Vq-WCHa5rSyoVgfD1iXBmmNmVtJvr8sw&_nc_ht=scontent.fcgy1-1.fna&oh=46b0f15b89a4a492a746ba3f549a2812&oe=5D619990

https://scontent.fcgy1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60569312_10214585999263933_573400987536982016_n.jp g?_nc_cat=108&_nc_eui2=AeFePP9o7MF9tjrO6iMaTB2W_lUPogeKJWIweb47d GTYUUkXWnsbvIXf097IThzqnvbUj35C5MJ2yaU0j7uA7ItKgCA 656TJgS8IEK4pP-FjvA&_nc_ht=scontent.fcgy1-1.fna&oh=ff9c7cb12f57c5a9d33900c4e09222b3&oe=5D5D94F2

https://scontent.fcgy1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60906715_10214585999063928_7789461239029039104_n.j pg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_eui2=AeHwsIzg-eNBjx7ezP5DR66407rcF-8BvOZ1JX6vYJIjP-H9nDapUJZirZzOVqvihi716dCyTBXhD8VuMzdeuUurKjRnvMiW YyTWHE8pBY4_Tw&_nc_ht=scontent.fcgy1-1.fna&oh=612218da1a5750f53f608ba17eb18683&oe=5D58C9EA

Cal

05-20-2019, 03:08 PM

There is one church in each city, just like there is one church on earth and one church in the USA and one church in Texas and one church in Travis County.

But there is nothing in the Bible that says the one church in a city must be a "practical church," that is, one with a single tightly-coordinated set of leaders who recognize no other organizational entity but their own and expect everyone in the city to join and follow them. The Bible contains no such thought.

The Bible clearly identifies city churches. But it also identifies house churches, which introduces sufficient reasonable doubt on the city-church-only doctrine. There is no definitive text which says beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt there can be only one practical (meaning operationally organized on a regular basis) church per city. The thought is just not there, but rather must be assumed.

To assume a doctrine with such extreme and far-reaching implications (for assuming it is to invalidate 99.999% of churches on the face of the earth) is clearly much too much.

Add to this the fact that in its history the doctrine has plainly not produced any true oneness, but rather only a "oneness" of a personality sect, and you have sufficient reason to discard it as at best gravely flawed and most likely perniciously destructive.

As far as I'm concerned the horses have left the barn on this teaching. It's false. I recommend no one lose any sleep over it.

Cal

05-20-2019, 06:28 PM

Here's a few other problems with the false one practical church per city doctrine as held by the LR:

Assuming there is one "practical" church per city, just where is it and how do you you know? How do you know who the true leaders are?

Several LR answers should be examined now:

1) The "the apostle appoints the leaders" doctrine. But that's just kicking the can down the road. Who decides who is the true apostle, if there are any? The basic problem is there is no way to establish in an absolute sense who the leaders in the city are. Each person must decide for himself or herself who to follow. Freedom of conscience demands this.

2) The "we were here first" aka the "squatter's rights" doctrine. I can't see that being first is anywhere a biblical principle. God is not a respecter of seniority.

But let's say a group was first. What is to stop a second group from saying, "Yes, you are meeting as the church in the city, but we feel you do so in name only and actually have a divisive spirit." Based on that registration of conscience, why is the second group obligated to submit to the first? Clearly there is absolutely no biblical reason that they should be expected to do so.

The bottom line is the one-practical-church-per-city doctrine simply collapses under the weight of its own contradictions and hypocrisies. It only works as a means of intimidating those naive individuals which a group of leaders wish to subject to themselves. It's an invalid and non-biblical means of lording over God's people. Those who abuse it will have to answer to the Lord for their error.

ZNPaaneah

05-20-2019, 07:18 PM

There is a simple solution -- every Christian who receives the 7 ones in Ephesians is part of the one church in the city. If you attend a meeting in the city that should be the only criteria to taking the table. If that is the case then we can all be "the one church in the one city". "One elder", "one leadership" and "one apostle" are not part of the seven ones, so that is a non issue. Shame on anyone who tries to make that a criteria.

Cal

05-20-2019, 08:30 PM

T"One elder", "one leadership" and "one apostle" are not part of the seven ones, so that is a non issue. Shame on anyone who tries to make that a criteria.

Absolute correct, ZNP.

Simply put, the LR one church per city doctrine is actually a one leadership per city doctrine. It's nothing more than a way to subject as many Christians as possible to a single leadership, which is itself subject to Witness Lee.

ZNPaaneah

05-21-2019, 06:15 AM

Absolute correct, ZNP.

Simply put, the LR one church per city doctrine is actually a one leadership per city doctrine. It's nothing more than a way to subject as many Christians as possible to a single leadership, which is itself subject to Witness Lee.

I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called, 2 with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

The Lord was sovereign to allow WN and WL to teach this doctrine. It tells us to give diligence to keep the oneness of the Spirit, and that is a requirement for "walking worthily of the calling".

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.

However, there is "one Lord". To set up any other authority other than "one Lord" is to deny the One who redeemed us. Peter warned us of this "who shall privily bring in [a]destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them". Paul was a prisoner, imagine a prisoner having the chutzpah to claim that the only authentic church was one where he laid hands on the elders?!

Ohio

05-21-2019, 08:25 AM

Simply put, the LR one church per city doctrine is actually a one leadership per city doctrine. It's nothing more than a way to subject as many Christians as possible to a single leadership, which is itself subject to Witness Lee.

Why is it that we never thought through Nee's and Lee's mandate that ONLY an apostle can appoint elders? Ironically, it was not even Paul who appointed elders in their scheme, but Titus (1.5)

With such a restrictive mandate in place, were there then no legitimate elders for 1900 years until Nee came along? Is this how real church history should be viewed? What happens to all the LC's after Lee passed? Who then is authorized to appoint elders? Where is the scriptural mandate, and official qualifications for, the authority of the Blendeds to appoint new elders? How in the world then did the Blendeds receive authority to de-legitimize elders appointed by Titus Chu, once recognized by Lee as an apostle, as they did in Mansfield, OH?

Obviously we were sold a bill of goods. The Bible never mandated that elders must be appointed by apostles. Yes, initially it happened, but never was this sanctioned by scripture. That's why Paul gave specific criteria for elders and deacons, so that churches could flourish after the apostles left us. That's why Paul told the elders in Ephesus that they were selected by the Spirit if God. (Acts 20.28)

The appointment of elders, on the other hand, provided great power to Lee, and he was all about control. He appointed many elders whose only qualification was blind loyalty, a criteria which never crossed Paul's mind. To Paul, elders were consecrated to God on behalf of the church, and not devoted to a work or a man's ministry.

Cal

05-21-2019, 09:31 AM

The appointment of elders, on the other hand, provided great power to Lee, and he was all about control. He appointed many elders whose only qualification was blind loyalty, a criteria which never crossed Paul's mind. To Paul, elders were consecrated to God on behalf of the church, and not devoted to a work or a man's ministry.

Lee really believed that the way for God to accomplish his purpose was to produce uniformity in the Church at large. If we were all on the same page, so to speak, God could accomplish much.

That thought is not all bad, but the problem is he sought to enforce that uniformity by coercion, by swinging the weight of authority, or rather presumed authority.

All you have to do is look at the Catholic Church to see how such a thing can go wrong, and that when it does go wrong, which it did, if you accepted his model of authority there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it, other that to stop following him. This dissonance was eased by extreme rationalizations such as "even when he's wrong he's right," and other such nonsense.

Lee was a megalomaniac. Most megalomaniacs really believe the world would be a better place and everyone would be happier if they were running things. They see themselves as saviors; and like Thanos in the Avengers series they have "noble" intentions. But they are still nuts.

ZNPaaneah

05-21-2019, 11:23 AM

Why is it that we never thought through Nee's and Lee's mandate that ONLY an apostle can appoint elders? Ironically, it was not even Paul who appointed elders in their scheme, but Titus (1.5)

Yes, it creates hysterical problems.

1. Suppose one apostle appointed elders in Brooklyn and another apostle appointed elders in Manhattan. What happens when they both become one city?

2. Suppose one apostle appoints elders throughout China (Hudson Taylor) and then dies. Along comes WN and appoints more elders. What happens when two of these cities become one?

3. Let's suppose WL appoints elders in Houston, but then they move to Irving, so the elders appoint new elders. Is it still considered they were appointed by "the apostle"? If so how many generations does this work? Does it only work for elders appointed by the apostle (say blendeds?) If so doesn't that usurp the Lord's authority?

Cal

05-21-2019, 08:25 PM

ZNPaaneah

05-22-2019, 06:17 AM

Again, the problem is not with the idea of one church per city. We are comfortable with the idea of all Christians being part of one universal church. The church in the city is simply the universal church on the local level. But there is nothing that says that one church in a city must needs be tightly organized under one group of leaders. And even if you think it does, the practical problem stills remains regarding how to decide who the leaders of that one city church truly are.

Who should all the Christian in the city follow? The fact is there is absolutely no way for anyone to determine beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt who the city church leaders should be. This is a major issue. You are talking about in some cases ostensive leaders over hundreds of thousand of Christians. Should everyone follow the LR leaders just because the LR says they should? How silly is that? And what happened to freedom of conscience? If someone feels the self-proclaimed city church leaders are corrupt, does he or she still have to follow them?

The solution to this problem was resolved at the time of Moses. He took rods from representatives of the 12 tribes and Aaron's rod budded. That is how they knew that God had chosen him. Likewise, Jesus' resurrection is how we all know that God has chosen Him.

The problem with the LR city church model is that it provides no means of "recovery" of exactly the kind that allowed the LR movement to form in the first place--that is, people voting with their consciences and feet to follow where they feel the Lord is leading. And if the Lord can lead you into a movement, he can lead you out of it. It's absolutely ridiculous to expect that you cannot reach a point where you simply can no longer in good conscience follow a group of leaders anymore, even if they proclaim to be the leaders over the one church in the city you happen to live in.

Thus the LR city church model is a logical, practical and spiritual absurdity. It boils down to nonsense. Like I said, don't lose any sleep over it. Those of us who have thought this thing through have done that for you.

But this has very important ramifications that you should think through. If the "One church one city" doctrine taught by Nee and Lee is spiritual absurdity then so also is the MOTA doctrine since it is built on that doctrine being God's move for this age. If MOTA doctrine falls then so to does the basis for the church being tied to LSM, since their claim to a monopoly rests solely on the MOTA doctrine. If that principle falls then actions like the excommunication of Titus Chu are revealed for what they are, a power play in a sect.

awareness

05-22-2019, 08:31 AM

Again, the problem is not with the idea of one church per city. We are comfortable with the idea of all Christians being part of one universal church. The church in the city is simply the universal church on the local level. But there is nothing that says that one church in a city must needs be tightly organized under one group of leaders. And even if you think it does, the practical problem stills remains regarding how to decide who the leaders of that one city church truly are.

Who should all the Christian in the city follow? The fact is there is absolutely no way for anyone to determine beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt who the city church leaders should be. This is a major issue. You are talking about in some cases ostensive leaders over hundreds of thousand of Christians. Should everyone follow the LR leaders just because the LR says they should? How silly is that? And what happened to freedom of conscience? If someone feels the self-proclaimed city church leaders are corrupt, does he or she still have to follow them?

The problem with the LR city church model is that it provides no means of "recovery" of exactly the kind that allowed the LR movement to form in the first place--that is, people voting with their consciences and feet to follow where they feel the Lord is leading. And if the Lord can lead you into a movement, he can lead you out of it. It's absolutely ridiculous to expect that you cannot reach a point where you simply can no longer in good conscience follow a group of leaders anymore, even if they proclaim to be the leaders over the one church in the city you happen to live in.

Thus the LR city church model is a logical, practical and spiritual absurdity. It boils down to nonsense. Like I said, don't lose any sleep over it. Those of us who have thought this thing through have done that for you.
One church one city is Much Ado about Nothing. Except to establish a hierarchical authoritative system with one man on top, the apostle, as the one and only authority 'of God.'

The very authoritative system type that debauched Christianity in the 4th century.

And who is 'the apostle" today? The Blended Brothers? Are they a committee of apostles? Lee selected elders. How do the BB's select elders? by vote ... majority wins ... minus Gods' vote?

And the 'one minister in each age doctrine,' how does that work now? Has God moved away from that? Or was that just a phantom of Nee and Lee, to make them the great one and only ministers of the age? And now God has some that are most blended with them, specially Lee?

Only blind fanatics -- those that have abdicated the power to think for them self -- and the unfortunate that have grown up in the LC, can't see what a joke all of this is. (Let's hope they catch on when they grow up.)

And what happens when the Blended Brothers pass on? And those poor future ages? What happens to them?

One church one city is a fringe movement ... that will end up meaning nothing in the long run. Jesus will still be wherever 2 or 3 are gathered together.

Cal

05-22-2019, 09:27 AM

And the 'one minister in each age doctrine,' how does that work now? Has God moved away from that? Or was that just a phantom of Nee and Lee, to make them the great one and only ministers of the age? And now God has some that are most blended with them, specially Lee?

That's a good point. I know this thread isn't on the MOTA, but the city church and the MOTA are so intertwined and dependent upon each other that it is hard to talk about one and not the other.

It's interesting that Nee and Lee came up with the idea of MOTA. The people who they identified as past MOTAs never claimed the title, as far as I know. But Nee and Lee did. But once they did, after them suddenly God abandoned the MOTA effort. No more MOTAs. Lee was the last one. He comes along, invents the idea of MOTA which he applied to himself, and then after he is gone... no more MOTAs. How convenient.

Like Harold said, only blind fanatics could go for this stuff. I guess that's what we were.

I believe Lee had some good stuff. Some things were even superb. There is no denying. But the fact is he let it go to his head, he thought of himself more highly than he should. And, sadly and ironically, by so tainting his own ministry with doctrines specifically designed to pad his resume as a visionary and to lord it over others, he actually ensured that very few people benefited from the good things the Lord gave him. Quite sad.

Trapped

05-22-2019, 10:07 AM

Cal

05-22-2019, 10:19 AM

Can someone point to where Nee or Lee called themselves MOTAs? I know some LCers who don't agree with the MOTA thing but say that it really came into play after Lee's death and that it's the BBs who use the term MOTA. They think that Nee and Lee wouldn't have agreed with it.

Did Nee and Lee ever refer to themselves this way (either explicitly or implicitly)?

I believe it was Nee who formalized the doctrine of the MOTA. Lee reiterated it. He stated plainly that "the Lord's recovery" was always with the MOTA, and he plainly claimed the Lord's recovery was with him. I heard him do that several times. He regularly talked about how the progression of God's revelation culminated with his ministry. Although I never heard him say flatly, "I am the minister of the age," he clearly believed it and and expected us to believe it as well. He claimed to have no peer in his lifetime other than Nee. He bragged about his ministry, claiming it had no peer. It makes no sense that he would teach about the MOTA, and make such other high-falutin' claims about himself, and not believe he was the MOTA.

He was coy about it, a kind of unconvincing humility. But he believed it, and expected us to.

It goes without saying that the BBs' whole reign of terror depends on them having people believe it.

Ohio

05-22-2019, 11:52 AM

It's interesting that Nee and Lee came up with the idea of MOTA. The people who they identified as past MOTAs never claimed the title, as far as I know. But Nee and Lee did. But once they did, after them suddenly God abandoned the MOTA effort. No more MOTAs. Lee was the last one. He comes along, invents the idea of MOTA which he applied to himself, and then after he is gone... no more MOTAs. How convenient.

The British Exclusive Brethren had developed "MOTA" architecture decades before Nee devoured their ecclesiastic writings. They didn't actually use the term "MOTA," but rather "Oracle" or "Our Brother" or "First Among Equals," my favorite. Today the movement can trace their "Oracle" lineage back to Darby. Darby also developed their OCOC structures, or "one city, one assembly."

Darby was officially elevated in stature among their assemblies after his two chief rivals were publicly "lynched." I used the word "rivals" even though neither B.W. Newton nor G. Muller viewed Darby as a "rival." Nee and Lee viewed the "Recovered Church" from Martin Luther as always being led from age to age by one outstanding minister, as a modern day "Paul."

I found it interesting to note that both the Open and Exclusive leaders viewed Biblical authority through their pre-Brethren upbringing. Darby was an Irish Anglican priest, while Muller, Chapman, Chapman, and others had a Baptist background. Darby's Exclusive view of church oneness was similar to the Anglicans with member parishes under an overseeing regional bishop. The Open view of oneness was fellowshiping assemblies shepherded by local elders who only served God and served their church, yet opened their doors to all believers.

As numerous historians have noted, Darby and his successors had become far worse "Popes" than the ones in Rome they regularly condemned. Some have said the same of Anaheim. The parallels are striking. Same bad teachings produce the same bad results.

Jo S

05-22-2019, 12:48 PM

The British Exclusive Brethren had developed "MOTA" architecture decades before Nee devoured their ecclesiastic writings. They didn't actually use the term "MOTA," but rather "Oracle" or "Our Brother" or "First Among Equals," my favorite. Today the movement can trace their "Oracle" lineage back to Darby. Darby also developed their OCOC structures, or "one city, one assembly."

Darby was officially elevated in stature among their assemblies after his two chief rivals were publicly "lynched." I used the word "rivals" even though neither B.W. Newton nor G. Muller viewed Darby as a "rival." Nee and Lee viewed the "Recovered Church" from Martin Luther as always being led from age to age by one outstanding minister, as a modern day "Paul."

I found it interesting to note that both the Open and Exclusive leaders viewed Biblical authority through their pre-Brethren upbringing. Darby was an Irish Anglican priest, while Muller, Chapman, Chapman, and others had a Baptist background. Darby's Exclusive view of church oneness was similar to the Anglicans with member parishes under an overseeing regional bishop. The Open view of oneness was fellowshiping assemblies shepherded by local elders who only served God and served their church, yet opened their doors to all believers.

As numerous historians have noted, Darby and his successors had become far worse "Popes" than the ones in Rome they regularly condemned. Some have said the same of Anaheim. The parallels are striking. Same bad teachings produce the same bad results.

Apparently the behavior of elevating an individual to biblical status carries over into all segments of the Local Churches. This including the Midwest branches which I know from members own words that they view Titus Chu as a modern day "Apostle Paul".

I can't say if it's something that's insinuated or a cultural thing being imposed on scripture but from what I've seen, within the two factions, is a power struggle between a corporate Lee and Lee 2.0.

I see members here still choosing sides and it's what's keeping these two group in division. Young ones are hurting growing up within such an environment and perhaps struggle to understand why exactly that is.

I don't have all the details but it's plain to me they're both divided against each other because of misplaced loyalty in men other than the Savior.

awareness

05-22-2019, 01:25 PM

That's a good point. I know this thread isn't on the MOTA, but the city church and the MOTA are so intertwined and dependent upon each other that it is hard to talk about one and not the other.

It's interesting that Nee and Lee came up with the idea of MOTA. The people who they identified as past MOTAs never claimed the title, as far as I know. But Nee and Lee did. But once they did, after them suddenly God abandoned the MOTA effort. No more MOTAs. Lee was the last one. He comes along, invents the idea of MOTA which he applied to himself, and then after he is gone... no more MOTAs. How convenient.

Like Harold said, only blind fanatics could go for this stuff. I guess that's what we were.

I believe Lee had some good stuff. Some things were even superb. There is no denying. But the fact is he let it go to his head, he thought of himself more highly than he should. And, sadly and ironically, by so tainting his own ministry with doctrines specifically designed to pad his resume as a visionary and to lord it over others, he actually ensured that very few people benefited from the good things the Lord gave him. Quite sad.
It was WE that inflated Lee's head. It was me, and you, and all the rest that flocked to Lee that made him believe that God was working thru him. WE are to blame.

And for good reason. I came out of a denomination. When I heard of one church one city it really tickled my fancy. The idea that all the believers in a city was in the church in that city really warmed my heart, and moved my spirit.

But that was their doctrine, not the practice. Cuz believers in the city that didn't meet in Lee's LCs weren't considered in THE church.

Others, and there were others, that caught onto the OCOC doctrine were taking the ground in other cities. When Lee ordered localities to converge on Ft. Lauderdale, Bob Mumford had already taken the ground. So we had a problem. According to the OCOC doctrine we were to meet with them. But they weren't following Lee. So we declared the ground anyway. And guess what? Mumford and his following weren't in the church in the city. That doctrine went out the window in order to keep Lee as the one and only apostle on the earth. The minister of the age doctrine overrode the doctrine of OCOC.

So the real purpose, turns out, behind the "recovery" of OCOC, was the recovery of the MOTA -- that never existed --- to elevate them to being the one and only authority of God on the earth.

OCOC only works when the church in the city is autonomous, without centralized control. So Nee and Lee's OCOC was a bait and switch.

And we were, and they are now, enablers and validators of the MOTA. We, when Lee was alive, and they, now that he's dead and gone.

And by the way, the Lord removed the Lee lampstand in Ft. Lauderdale, and one of Mumford's followers developed one of the largest Megachurches in America. So who was God with? Not with the one church one city bunch. That was Nee's and Lee's doctrine, not God's ... and certainly has no real Biblical support ... not blown in what Nee and Lee blew it into.

Ohio

05-22-2019, 02:13 PM

Apparently the behavior of elevating an individual to biblical status carries over into all segments of the Local Churches. This including the Midwest branches which I know from members own words that they view Titus Chu as a modern day "Apostle Paul".

I can't say if it's something that's insinuated or a cultural thing being imposed on scripture but from what I've seen, within the two factions, is a power struggle between a corporate Lee and Lee 2.0.

I see members here still choosing sides and it's what's keeping these two group in division. Young ones are hurting growing up within such an environment and perhaps struggle to understand why exactly that is.

I don't have all the details but it's plain to me they're both divided against each other because of their misplaced loyalty in men other than the Savior.

So true. And well said. I heard from both sides that I must "take a stand for the truth." But I loved brothers on both "sides." But don't let those "natural relationships" affect your decision. All sides were abusive, and sometimes abuse from a distance appears better than abuse up close. But weren't we only for Christ? For the truth? For the oneness? for the brothers?

Finally, after decades of devotion and loyal service, my wife and I stepped away and viewed the program objectively. Just too much dishonesty, unrighteousness, broken promises, and abuse hiding beneath all that "high peak" rhetoric.

ZNPaaneah

05-22-2019, 03:06 PM

Can someone point to where Nee or Lee called themselves MOTAs?

I never heard WL refer to himself as a MOTA and I heard him rebuke others when they said it. However, you knew that if WL really wanted to put a stop to people saying it he would have.

Rather the book the "vision of the age" is one of the basic pieces of what he would teach.

In this book he talks about T. Austin Sparks, how his vision differed with the LC on the matter of the church ground. He then goes through history making the point that at any one point in history you have to have the vision of that age. The very obvious context is that we in the LC have that vision, which is how this book concludes.

He rebukes James for not having the vision, even saying this "The fact that Jerusalem was burned to the ground and that thousands of people were killed was altogether James’s fault."

He rebukes Barnabas for not having the vision. etc.

So in this message he teaches that individuals like Paul got the vision for that age, that there were many godly men who didn't have the vision (like James, Barnabas and T. Austin Sparks) and that you could be pious, preaching the gospel, and spiritual without having the complete vision.

Then in other places you will see him teach about there being one minister per age with the vision for that age and will teach that WN was the minister of his age and that the ground of the church was the vision for that age.

Put these two teachings together and you come to the conclusion that WL has the vision for his age and is therefore the MOTA. Though he would not say it, rather he would leave it to RG and others to say it.

Jo S

05-22-2019, 03:08 PM

So true. And well said. I heard from both sides that I must "take a stand for the truth." But I loved brothers on both "sides." But don't let those "natural relationships" affect your decision. All sides were abusive, and sometimes abuse from a distance appears better than abuse up close. But weren't we only for Christ? For the truth? For the oneness? for the brothers?

Finally, after decades of devotion and loyal service, my wife and I stepped away and viewed the program objectively. Just too much dishonesty, unrighteousness, broken promises, and abuse hiding beneath all that "high peak" rhetoric.

Ohio, I haven't read much into this topic here so I wasn't sure if you were in agreement with Titus Chu being Witness Lee's successor as "Apostle" or MOTA but by your reply I can be sure which brings me to my next question;

I see you and others often using the excommunication of Chu as an argument against the ethics of the Blendeds but I hardly ever see arguments against the elevated position Titus Chu willingly fills if you in fact agree he is seen as the "next in line" to Witness Lee.

Why is that?

It's partially rhetorical but also genuine curiousity because I've not been as involved as you guys so I accept I may be missing something.

ZNPaaneah

05-22-2019, 03:57 PM

Ohio, I haven't read much into this topic here so I wasn't sure if you were in agreement with Titus Chu being Witness Lee's successor as "Apostle" or MOTA but by your reply I can be sure which brings me to my next question;

I see you and others often using the excommunication of Chu as an argument against the ethics of the Blendeds but I hardly ever see arguments against the elevated position Titus Chu willingly fills if you in fact agree he is seen as the "next in line" to Witness Lee.

Why is that?

It's partially rhetorical but also genuine curiousity because I've not been as involved as you guys so I accept I may be missing something.

I see these as two distinct and separate questions.

The Blendeds laid out their case, according to scripture, for excommunicating Titus. I felt that case could be viewed, analyzed and judged solely on its merits. I only met Titus once and did not know him, have no idea what "next in line" is supposed to mean as I never subscribed to the MOTA doctrine, and didn't have to know anything more.

Ohio

05-22-2019, 04:30 PM

Jo S

05-22-2019, 04:45 PM

I read this post thrice, and I'm not sure what do you mean, "Why is that?"

I suppose what confuses me is how Chu's excommunication is used against the Blendeds when you yourself view Titus Chu as another Lee figure or as I put it earlier "Lee 2.0".

I just assume with all the opposition to Witness Lee, there would be equal opposition to Titus Chu's ministry (which you personally were a part of) and I don't see that here. To me, it gives the appearance of bias so that's why I was asking for some clarity to this discrepancy.

Jo S

05-22-2019, 04:48 PM

I see these as two distinct and separate questions.

The Blendeds laid out their case, according to scripture, for excommunicating Titus. I felt that case could be viewed, analyzed and judged solely on its merits. I only met Titus once and did not know him, have no idea what "next in line" is supposed to mean as I never subscribed to the MOTA doctrine, and didn't have to know anything more.

By "Next in line" I meant the leader/apostle or torch bearer of the LC's borrowed Pentecostal vision of one church one city. Succession going Nee>Lee>Chu.

This hierarchical position was immediately obvious to me and it's the same with many others here. Are you saying you didn't see Lee or Nee as movement leaders?

From what I gather, the Blendeds excommunicated Titus based on the charge of selfish ambition. Correct me if I'm wrong but they also saw Chu as someone that was attempting to usurp the mantle of Lee where as they claim they are the ones carrying out Lee's last wishes by standing in his place as an entity rather than an individual.

Ohio

05-22-2019, 05:53 PM

I suppose what confuses me is how Chu's excommunication is used as an argument to invalidate the Blendeds position of authority when you yourself view Titus Chu as another Lee figure or as I put it earlier "Lee 2.0".

I just assume with all the opposition to Witness Lee, there would be equal opposition to Titus Chu's ministry (which you personally were a part of) and I don't see that at all. It gives the appearance of bias so that's why I was asking for some clarity to this discrepancy.
Your question confuses me too. Go back and read my posts. There's quite a few.

What does "Lee 2.0" exactly mean? Unlike WL, TC never let his prodigal and degenerate son run his publishing house, molest the sisters, cover it up, and attack the whistle blowers. WL fleeced the saints with Daystar motor homes and other money-making schemes.

There are numerous issues in your posts all mixed together. Why should I not question the Blended's position of authority over Titus Chu and any other Ohio brother? Also, why should I not challenge the Blended's excommunication of Titus Chu? Why should I not protest LSM's abuse of Ohio area LC's, acting as thieves to steal, kill, and destroy?

Titus Chu viewed himself as a successor of Lee. It was told to me that TC repeated a saying from Taiwan, "Nee-Lee-Chu," in the aftermath of Lee's death. TC definitely had aspirations of leading all of the LC's. He definitely felt that he was more qualified, more spiritual, and more accomplished than any of the LSM staff. I was the one that made the forum aware of this. I have stated publicly that TC would have gone to Anaheim to "drain the swamp."

My only "protest" about TC has been the way he manipulates and mistreats brothers. He has done much work for the Lord, but it all gets negated by his abuses. The same is true with Anaheim. Both lord it over the brothers. I migrated twice to be a part of two new LC's, and in both cases TC nearly destroyed elders and ministers. TC's public shamings are absolutely brutal. He said he learned everything from WL. Both of my LC's were seriously hurt by these abuses and manipulations.

Cal

05-22-2019, 07:20 PM

Come to think of it, the Blendeds may have done everyone a favor by ousting Chu. Imagine the "Recovery" with that bully in charge. I shudder to think. Better their brown-nosing ineptness than his I'm-next-up craziness.

But the whole lot of them aren't worth a dime and a dozen donuts when it comes to leading God people.

Jo S

05-22-2019, 07:50 PM

I guess where I was going with all of that was this; what do personal shortcomings or even issues of policy matter when both sides still adhere to the same core doctrine?

Even if you managed to pit all LCers against the Blendeds or against Titus Chu's ministry, false doctrine remains.

So is it Titus or the Blendeds that are separating people from Christ? Or is it the so called "vision of the age" both sides hold to? There have been multiple revisions to leadership within the LC's yet the foundational doctrines remain consistent.

By investing in this dichotomy of Titus vs the Blendeds, I just see it as maintaining the current division within the LC's rather than being a solution to it and as such ultimately distracting both sides from being reconciled to Christ.

Shouldn't that be the goal?

Ohio

05-23-2019, 05:38 AM

I saw the abuses and bully tactics on all levels -- national, regional, and local -- as I looked back on my 30 years of loyal service. I had heard endless messages about reconciliation, yet saw none of that in action with the leadership. The basic message of Christian love -- love your neighbor as yourself -- was hidden on the shelves full of ministry books. No Christian group talked so much about the oneness, yet every church I knew was carved up into camps loyal to their man. We would shake our heads at all the failures in the church in Corinth as we lived out the exact same events in the Recovery -- divisions, backbiting, lawsuits, immorality, failed marriages, chaos in the communion service, etc.

Jo S you are right about bad leaders and bad teachings. Isn't there a saying about deceiving people with "big lies?" No lie was so big as the one we heard about being "local" churches.

Ohio

05-23-2019, 05:45 AM

I guess where I was going with all of that was this; what do personal shortcomings or even issues of policy matter when both sides still adhere to the same core doctrine?

Even if you managed to pit all LCers against the Blendeds or against Titus Chu's ministry, false doctrine remains.

So is it Titus or the Blendeds that are separating people from Christ? Or is it the so called "vision of the age" both sides hold to? There have been multiple revisions to leadership within the LC's yet the foundational doctrines remain consistent.

By investing in this dichotomy of Titus vs the Blendeds, I just see it as maintaining the current division within the LC's rather than being a solution to it and as such ultimately distracting both sides from reconciling to Christ.

Shouldn't that be the goal?
Jo S apparently you came on board during this dichotomy. I left as it was ramping up. After I studied Brethren history, I realized the situation was incureable. The only healthy recourse was to leave. And slowly detox.

ZNPaaneah

05-23-2019, 06:54 AM

By "Next in line" I meant the leader/apostle or torch bearer of the LC's borrowed Pentecostal vision of one church one city. Succession going Nee>Lee>Chu.

This hierarchical position was immediately obvious to me and it's the same with many others here. Are you saying you didn't see Lee or Nee as movement leaders?

From what I gather, the Blendeds excommunicated Titus based on the charge of selfish ambition. Correct me if I'm wrong but they also saw Chu as someone that was attempting to usurp the mantle of Lee where as they claim they are the ones carrying out Lee's last wishes by standing in his place as an entity rather than an individual.

Not from where I stood. After the Max rebellion in 78 it was clear to us in Houton that Benson Phillips was the big winner. Shortly thereafter Houston became an arm of LSM, with printing taking place there. In hindsight this could be seen as a reward for their part in the Sister's rebellion and also for taking in the sister abused by PL and covering it up. Shortly after this Irving was created with the purpose of being a major publishing and conference center for LSM. 100 saints from Houston moved up. Basically the front two rows. Ray G, and Benson were the leaders of both the construction and church there. LSM built Benson a house adjacent to the property. Titus was as peripheral to this work as Bill Freeman was. During this time RG and BP demonstrated their loyalty by hiding their eyes once again to PL's abuses, stabbing JI in the back. The elders that replaced the Anaheim elders included EM, a proxy for both RG and BP. At the same time there was the FTTT, Benson, Ray, Ed M, and Kerry R all played significant roles there. One brother from Austin took on a leadership role. Basically it appeared to be a collaboration between Anaheim and Texas for the American saints. Again, as far as I could tell Titus played an insignificant role. The only things I heard about Titus at this point, from the closest workers to WL (who was also in Taipei) were complaints about him using fleshly means (music) in his gospel outreach. From this the FTTA was created with EM and KR playing important leadership roles (they are both from Houston and proxies for RG and BP). KRobicheaux was critical to this change as he has the credential to help with translation and deal with the theological issues that torment WL.

If Titus was telling people "Nee-Lee-Me" then he was delusional.

Cal

05-23-2019, 09:41 AM

The whole error with "the Recovery" is the belief that what God needs to do he can only do in "the Recovery," or by it, or through it. This shows a fundamental confusion about how God does things.

LRers point to the many great things they've seen and heard in "the Recovery" and conclude that it must be special and unique, and here their flawed concept of oneness is applied to support their idea that everyone else should join them.

But here's the truth. Each and all of us are in reality in the Lord's plan and purpose, and heirs of all he is, has and has done. But that does not mean that any of us or group of us have special status to own or wield those wonderful blessings in an exclusive or semi-exclusive way. The LR does not have proprietary rights to any of God's truth, even if its founder was the one who made that truth clearer than anyone had before. The truth is the truth and is owned by everyone. Just because God used you do reveal it does not make you owner of it.

Thus, anyone can fall out of grace, just like that. And anyone can jump into grace, just like that. Do you enjoy many of the truths you see in "the Recovery?" Great! But you don't need "the Recovery" to enjoy them. You just need 2 or more gathered in his name who are willing to enjoy them as well.

This is why I have a fundamental problem with those who feel they need to "fix" "the Recovery" in order to resume the blessing they once knew. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Sorry, Steve Isitt, if this still describes you.) If you believe such a thing is true, then it is still evidence you believe "the Recovery" is by its very nature special, which is the root of all its evil. By believing it you are empowering the very errors that you want to reform.

Take the truths you treasure and run with them. Find others and teach them what you believe. The Lord is not a respecter of persons or movements. He is able to produce children of Abraham from stones on the ground (Matt 3:9). There is nothing exclusively special about any subset of his kingdom. And to believe there is opens the door to serious problems. That's the folly of "the Recovery" in a nutshell. And it was that folly which actually thwarted whatever real good God wanted to do through Nee, Lee and their movement in the first place.

Jo S

05-23-2019, 10:27 AM

UntoHim

05-23-2019, 10:43 AM

Take the truths you treasure and run with them. Find others and teach them what you believe. The Lord is not a respecter of persons or movements. He is able to produce children of Abraham from stones on the ground (Matt 3:9). There is nothing exclusively special about any subset of his kingdom. And to believe there is opens the door to serious problems. That's the folly of "the Recovery" in a nutshell. And it was that folly which actually thwarted whatever real good God wanted to do through Nee, Lee and their movement in the first place.

...rather than being a solution to it and as such ultimately distracting both sides from being reconciled to Christ. Shouldn't that be the goal?

And this brings us full-circle around to the foundational Nee-Lee teaching of "one city - one church". To my knowledge, neither Nee or Lee were criticized for this doctrine - that all true, genuine Christians within a given locality should be one with each other in the preaching of the Gospel, the teaching of the Word, baptizing new believers and the taking of the Lord's Table. The criticisms come from the hyper-exclusive claims to ecclesiastical legitimacy, and the haughty attitude that "we have all the riches, and the Lord is only recovering the church through our church group". This is to not mention the insanity of claiming that your group's apostle is to be considered as "the one minister for the age", "God's deputy authority and one oracle on earth" and whose personal ministry is to be considered as "the one ministry for the age" and "THE New Testament Ministry", etc.

Instead of sticking their chests out and proclaim that "WE ARE THE CHURCH IN ANYCITY!", Local Churchers would do well to just BEHAVE LIKE THEY ARE THE CHURCH IN ANYCITY. Brothers and sisters, the definition of a true local church in the scriptures is not in coded language. It is not hidden from us. It is there in the pages of the New Testament. It is there in the Gospels and in the teachings, sayings, parables and admonitions of the Lord Jesus. It is there in the Acts of the Apostles and in the description of the infant church. It is there in the pages of all the various epistles of Peter, Paul and John.

Yes, the ultimate, unwavering goal of the church should be to be reconciled to Christ, and to reconcile others to Christ. But the reconciling does not take place within the shut doors of a meeting hall, but rather in the hearts and minds of all the true believers who seek, and live their lives, that His Will be done down here on earth as it is in heaven.
-

ZNPaaneah

05-23-2019, 11:22 AM

Going back to the question -- "one Church -- One City -- Biblical?"

The context of course is the doctrine that WN and WL taught in the LC. I would say it is Biblical. Jesus said that when you are invited to a feast (we all have been invited to the Lord's table) that you should not take the most prominent seat lest a greater than thee arrives and the host (the Lord Jesus) has to ask you to give up your seat.

I would say that describes this doctrine very well. They place themselves at the head of the table, the arrogance was on display for all to see, it has been a humbling experience leaving the LC, but at least now I feel like I belong at the table with all of God's children.

Being humbled under the mighty hand of God is Biblical.

Dealing with Jezebel, Balaam, and false prophets is part of the process in the seven churches. Those in Philadelphia "do not need to go out anymore" indicating that they didn't get to Philadelphia directly but had to leave some of the fallen iterations. Leaving your first love is a common temptation to those in the church. All of these experiences are of the Lord and help perfect us. I am very thankful for my experience in the LC. I felt the Lord led me to the group and that the Lord led me out of the group.

Jo S

05-23-2019, 11:50 AM

And this brings us full-circle around to the foundational Nee-Lee teaching of "one city - one church". To my knowledge, neither Nee or Lee were criticized for this doctrine - that all true, genuine Christians within a given locality should be one with each other in the preaching of the Gospel, the teaching of the Word, baptizing new believers and the taking of the Lord's Table. The criticisms come from the hyper-exclusive claims to ecclesiastical legitimacy, and the haughty attitude that "we have all the riches, and the Lord is only recovering the church through our church group". This is to not mention the insanity of claiming that your group's apostle is to be considered as "the one minister for the age", "God's deputy authority and one oracle on earth" and whose personal ministry is to be considered as "the one ministry for the age" and "THE New Testament Ministry", etc.

Instead of sticking their chests out and proclaim that "WE ARE THE CHURCH IN ANYCITY!", Local Churchers would do well to just BEHAVE LIKE THEY ARE THE CHURCH IN ANYCITY. Brothers and sisters, the definition of a true local church in the scriptures is not in coded language. It is not hidden from us. It is there in the pages of the New Testament. It is there in the Gospels and in the teachings, sayings, parables and admonitions of the Lord Jesus. It is there in the Acts of the Apostles and in the description of the infant church. It is there in the pages of all the various epistles of Peter, Paul and John.

Yes, the ultimate, unwavering goal of the church should be to be reconciled to Christ, and to reconcile others to Christ. But the reconciling does not take place within the shut doors of a meeting hall, but rather in the hearts and minds of all the true believers who seek, and live their lives, that His Will be done down here on earth as it is in heaven.
-

I have to admit, like Watchman Nee, I too have a great vision.

The Lord brought it to my attention again last night. This vision is nearest to my heart and I'd like to share it with you all.

It's one where finally, after tirelessly running this race, I'm resting at a table with all my beloved brothers and sisters in Christ in a fellowship that I've so been longing for. We're breaking bread together and drinking from the fruit of the vine. And Jesus is there. In this moment all the petty quarrelling, disagreements in doctrine, and sufferings we've caused each other are forgotten and no more and only the absolute peace and joy of our Lord remains.

Tears come to my eyes when I think about this day because it's not something that was imagined. It's real. It's already written!

The difference between my vision and Watchman Nee's is, this isn't actually my vision. It's Christ's vision given from my place at the Lord's table.

The LC's doctrine of locality isn't something that was ever envisioned by Christ. In Christ's vision there exists only one city, the New Jerusalem. And only there will his purified Church be gathered together at the end of this age. No precursors are required of us but to keep watch. And at a moment we will all be gathered from amongst the tares and caught up in the clouds to be with our Lord forever. So yes, eventually there will be "one church, one city" but not as the LC envisioned it to happen.

Cal

05-23-2019, 12:23 PM

Igzy, a question I had while reading your post was; If "The Recovery" or the idea that Christ's church needed reform is at the "root" of all the evil you see within the LC's then how do you conclude that God was ever involved in the Lord's Recovery to begin with if in fact this was the foundation and force leading the movement?

I never said recovery or the need to reform was the root of evil. I said the idea that God works exclusively through one subset of his church is the root of evil in the "Recovery" movement.

It's okay to be for recovery, just as long as you focus on yourself. But to say "Oh, the whole fallen, corrupt Church is in need of recovery, and our little movement is the pure and holy solution!" That's just arrogance and hubris, completely out of Christian character.

The Lord was/is obviously involved in the "Recovery" movement, just as he is involved in so many places. He always has the best intentions and hopes for any group that meets in his name. But due to human failing it doesn't always work out that way.

Ironically, the problem now is the "Recovery" is almost beyond recovery, because they believe they cannot be wrong about anything--and even if they are wrong, they are right. "We are the 'Recovery.' So we by definition don't need to be recovered." That's completely nutty.

Like I said, anyone can fall out of grace, just like that. Martin Luther is a good example. He was used by God to start the Reformation, but later in life he became a raving anti-Semite. Who knows for sure what plan the Lord had for Lee's movement. I just know that going around singing their own praises while condemning every other Christian organization was not it.

The ground of locality doctrine was just one more way they set themselves above everyone else.

Cal

05-23-2019, 12:24 PM

Instead of sticking their chests out and proclaim that "WE ARE THE CHURCH IN ANYCITY!", Local Churchers would do well to just BEHAVE LIKE THEY ARE THE CHURCH IN ANYCITY.

Amen to that!

Jo S

05-23-2019, 12:38 PM

I never said recovery or the need to reform was the root of evil. I said the idea that God works exclusively through one subset of his church is the root of evil in the "Recovery" movement.

The Lord was/is obviously involved in the "Recovery" movement, just as he is involved in so many places. He always has the best intentions and hopes for any group that meets in his name. But due to human failing it doesn't always work out that way.

Ironically, the problem now is the "Recovery" is almost beyond recovery, . Because the believe they cannot be wrong about anything, and even if they are wrong, they are right. "We are the 'Recovery.' So we by definition don't need to be recovered." That's completely nutty.

I wasn't disagreeing with the notion that Christ's church needing recovery is a root of evil. I actually happen to believe it is.

Scripture says that God's Word will not return void. As such, there was never anything for us or for Christ to recover in the first place. His Church has already been established from the foundation of the world.

Cal

05-23-2019, 04:14 PM

I wasn't disagreeing with the notion that Christ's church needing recovery is a root of evil. I actually happen to believe it is.

Scripture says that God's Word will not return void. As such, there was never anything for us or for Christ to recover in the first place. His Church has already been established from the foundation of the world.

That's a valid way of looking at it. On the other hand, I don't think anyone would argue against the need of Reformation when it came along.

There's nothing wrong with saying we need improvement or a returning to the truth. In general, recovery means just that.

(There was also the added nuance that there was this pristine Church in the 1st century that did everything right and that way got lost and needs to be re-discovered or "recovered." But the myth of the ideal 1st century Church is just that, a myth. The Church has always had lack of clarity and agreement, and other problems.)

In even more general terms, recovery means salvation, which we all need.

So, from your perspective, yes, there is no need for recovery because the Lord never misplaced the Church to begin with. But from the practical standpoint of simply needing to discover the truth about the Church, there is some need of, for lack of a better term, "recovery."

The problem wasn't that the LR didn't have ideas that were in some sense valid, it was that often the senses in which they applied those ideas were invalid and self-serving. They would take valid concepts, like oneness, and twist them to aggrandize themselves and discredit everyone else. They did this with the ideas of recovery, authority, ministry, Body, and on and on. If you get snookered into accepting their definitions of these ideas then they have you. But their definitions are usually flawed.

So I don't think the idea of recovery is altogether terrible. But I think saying there is this one subset of the Church which is "the Recovery" is terrible. That is the Big Lie.

awareness

05-24-2019, 09:21 AM

The ground of locality doctrine was just one more way they set themselves above everyone else.
Right. Even the apostolic fathers. While meeting in cities, if important they would surely have heard it from the apostles, but I guess dropped the ball, and forgot to mention it, nor did they ever stress the practice, and didn't shout "one church one city."

But Nee did. He was better than the apostolic fathers.

Jo S

05-25-2019, 12:53 PM

That's a valid way of looking at it. On the other hand, I don't think anyone would argue against the need of Reformation when it came along.

Did God use Martin Luther? I believe so. But I don't necessarily look at that occurrence in church history as "reformation", per se. Rather, I see it as preservation and mercy much like God changing the languages at Babel in order to preserve humanity by thwarting Satan's plans for absolute control.

It's just like what happened within the LC's. The split in 2006 really hasn't improve anything, has it? Perhaps Anaheim thought they too were reforming yet no matter who you excommunicate corrupt doctrine remains. Same goes for the other side. A fresh start won't matter if you hold onto the same ideas that are the root of all the problems within the LC's in the first place.

Cal

05-25-2019, 07:16 PM

A fresh start won't matter if you hold onto the same ideas that are the root of all the problems within the LC's in the first place.

That is correct.

Nell

08-03-2020, 05:36 AM

By the way, everyday I pass by the LC church on my way to campus. Today I noticed an inscription on a board that says "The Church in Pretoria".

It made me think of the ridiculousness of it all. Pretoria is the capital city with more than half a million people. Why should all of them go to one building?

Suppose parliament decides to cut the city in two: West Pretoria and East Pretoria. And currently the church is in West Pretoria. Will it then be right or wrong, in the LC eyes, to have a "church in" in both West Pretoria and East Pretoria? In other words, "The Church in West Pretoria" and "The Church in East Pretoria". If this is acceptable, why not divide it further and say a "church in" in each street? If wrong, then there can be only one gathering place. Let me make it clearer. If it is wrong to have a church in both the West and East, then suppose this: The whole world is Pretoria. There used to be only one church location. Then it was divided into a billion pieces. With that logic, it will never be right to have gathering places other than the first one.

Why bind the morality of where you may and may not meet on political structures?

Food for thought. I'd like to hear opinions.

One church, one city discussion history.