Originally Posted by Tom Kelly

Yes the body of our risen Lord is so rich with not only the fullness of what He is.. but His very essence ..No wonder He said this is my body Take and eat in rememberance of me ..this is my blood drink Brothers, Sisters we are one in this living one ..one with our Lords death and His very manifisational presence..Eat Him ..Drink Him.. Grow by in Him... He is our everything... Praise Him for worth is the Lamb and in this light we will not only remember Him, but we will see and appear with Him in His Glory not as we are, but as He is -What a Christ we Have , What a Christ we Claim Jesus His Mercy endures forever.. for the Lord has invited us to His table to dine with Him .PRAISE THE LORD the WONDERFUL ONE... AMEN!

Originally Posted by Terry

It's like a pyramid. In practice if attitudes change it begins with the blended co-workers. Cascades down to local elders and maybe then to congregations of each locality.
This is due in part to the blended co-workers equaling the feeling of the body. Whatever the co-workers may say, that's received as "feeling of the body". Agree or disagree, elders feel to honor the feeling of the body as expressed through the blended brothers.
Whether the elders from the church in Phoenix choose to fellowship with the Church in Scottsdale, it becomes a matter of "honoring feeling of the body". (i.e. what does Anaheim say?)

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Now that's the question! (Division is all really a bunch of non-essential silliness, isn't it!?)

Originally Posted by Terry

Have attitudes changed towards ones who have parted ways with LSM?

Originally Posted by Trapped

Regarding the fellowship you describe, I think the issue in this case would not be whether the church in Scottsdale would participate in fellowship with the nearby local churches, but whether the nearby local churches would participate in the fellowship if the church in Scottsdale was involved.

I am not aware of any LSM/WL related local church that deigns to fellowship with another legitimate but non-LSM local church that does not base its fellowship on WL's material or speaking. I have heard plenty of times descriptions from co-workers about this concept of the "standing" of proximate local churches....they dance around it with fancy phrases ("in the central lane of the recovery" is one exact phrase I've heard, for example) but come on......what that really means is "with the Witness Lee program"!!!

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. Fair question.

StG, how would you feel about opening this up with your elders?

Drake

Originally Posted by Trapped

Regarding the fellowship you describe, I think the issue in this case would not be whether the church in Scottsdale would participate in fellowship with the nearby local churches, but whether the nearby local churches would participate in the fellowship if the church in Scottsdale was involved.!

Originally Posted by Drake

We often focus on the mechanics of the teaching and practice of the ground of the church in a city ... but we have to consider whether our teaching and practice issues from the authority of the Holy Spirit as well. Local churches are the reprint of the Spirit therefore there is a fellowship among the churches in the larger reality... the One Body of Christ.

Originally Posted by Drake

I still don’t know enough about Scottsdale Church to say for sure that I would break bread. When I visit community churches I am before the Lord not to engage in anything that would offend His headship or the authority of the Holy Spirit. Breaking bread is a serious matter and that is why I said before that a believer examines and judges carefully in that and should not be criticized for choosing not to partake of it.

Originally Posted by Drake

Had you asked would I be willing to meet with you in Scottsdale or in the Scottsdale Church I would have said yes for sure, no doubt. But you asked specifically about breaking bread which is a serious matter.... so, I still do not know.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks for the reply. And post #34 of yours suggests going to a gathering with the ones who meet as the Church in Phoenix. I am certainly open and will mention it to one of the brothers who I think has had some recent contact. We may be lead of Him to go over and share Christ with those saints!

(BTW - Right now we are traveling a few weeks in the aforementioned RV up in Colorado, and unfortunately we keep having to break camp on Sundays to travel to our next destination - just how it's all working out. Therefore I haven't, and won't, be able to gather with any LC - or other saints - up here on Sundays!)

So, Drake, the original question and purpose of this thread was, "If you were in Scottsdale, would you take the table and enjoy Christ with us?"

Originally Posted by Drake

StG,

Per your inquiry I would refer you back to #34.

We often focus on the mechanics of the teaching and practice of the ground of the church in a city ... but we have to consider whether our teaching and practice issues from the authority of the Holy Spirit as well. Local churches are the reprint of the Spirit therefore there is a fellowship among the churches in the larger reality... the One Body of Christ. When I have lived in places where there are many local churches in close proximity to each other there is a sweet fellowship between them that opens the aperture to experiences of the One Body. So there is not only the ground but the fellowship as Brother Evangelical describes above. Only one way to test that.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As I understand it, your church was started by Bill Freeman while he created his own little faction out of the recovery with "his followers", and moved to Scottsdale. Doesn't really matter now how it started. Now let's say you're the church in the city, so you got a lampstand, you got it all going on! Hopefully all those denominations get brought down and everyone joins your (i.e. the local) church (I'm paraphrasing Nee here). That's why you meet separately from the other churches, right? Because if not, you're quoting of Nee is in vain I'm afraid, there is some responsibility with being the local church in the city.

In other words I hope it goes beyond being merely a "better version of "The Recovery"", like you said in your first post. I hope you see the meaning and value of the lampstand in the city according to Nee or Lee, and live up to that calling.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Then I probably would, you know?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Without addressing all your statements here, it's a somewhat fair synopsis I suppose (although no one is actively trying to bring any other group "down").

So here's the main point/original question from the first post which started this thread:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now let's say you're the church in the city, so you got a lampstand, you got it all going on! Hopefully all those denominations get brought down and everyone joins your (i.e. the local) church (I'm paraphrasing Nee here). That's why you meet separately from the other churches, right? Because if not, you're quoting of Nee is in vain I'm afraid, there is some responsibility with being the local church in the city.

In other words I hope it goes beyond being merely a "better version of "The Recovery"", like you said in your first post. I hope you see the meaning and value of the lampstand in the city according to Nee or Lee, and live up to that calling.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Evangelical - I don't know if you saw this from a few posts back. It was regarding the question you had asked: "For me it's very simple. Is your gathering the original church in Scottsdale or is it a church which came from the original one?"

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are two ways to be divisive - one in practice, and one in attitude. Here Nee is addressing a divisive attitude, for the "we" i.e. those in the local church. But no where does he condone division in practice, and even himself defines the differences between a genuine local church and sects. When reading or quoting the words of anyone, it's important to see where they are coming from. Nee comes from the view that the local church is the genuine church. Nee was for the idea that the local church, one church per city is the genuine church, and everything he wrote is in that context. Similarly, if Nee was a Catholic, then anything he wrote about sectarianism and division would be with respect to the view that the Catholic church is the true church.

Originally Posted by Trapped

First of all, I knew that each “side” would see different things from this passage before I posted it, but I think there are good points for both sides to consider.

Regarding Evangelical’s response, Nee clearly is referring to the local churches in many parts of the excerpt. Who else is the “we” in underline below referring to?

“If we look on other believers as sectarian and consider ourselves to be non-sectarian, we are immediately differentiating between God’s people and thereby manifesting a divisive spirit even in the very act of condemning division. No matter by what means we distinguish between the members of God’s family—even if it be on the pretext of Christ Himself—we are guilty of schism in the Body.”

“Denominations are not scriptural, and we ought to have no part in them, but if we adopt an attitude of criticism and think, “They are denominational; I am undenominational. They belong to sects; I belong to Christ alone”—such differentiating is definitely sectarian.”

I actually think this might be what I was looking for regarding this topic. Nee’s speaking was clear, positive, and inclusive but very cautionary about our attitude of others and our criticism of others. But Lee took that exact attitude of criticism! What else can you describe “poor, poor Christianity” as?

Nee seemed to ride the line of being doctrinally clear without allowing that to become a division, but Lee somehow turned it in a way that made it divisive/sectarian.

Additionally this bombshell: “If when we say “our brethren,” we do not include all the children of God, but only those who continually meet with us, then we are schismatic.” THIS DESCRIBES THE LOCAL CHURCHES TO A TEE!!!!!!!!!!! There it is! WOW. WOW. I missed that sentence the first time around but what a sentence!! The LC use of the phrase “the Body” overwhelmingly refers to just the saints in the LCs.

Originally Posted by Trapped

from The Normal Christian Church Life, Watchman Nee:

SEVEN FORBIDDEN GROUNDS OF DIVISION

(3)NON-SECTARIANISM. Some Christians think they know better than to say, “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos.” They say, “I am of Christ.” Such Christians despise the others as sectarian, and on that ground start another community. Their attitude is—“You are sectarian; I am non-sectarian. You are hero worshippers; we worship the Lord alone.”

But God’s Word condemns not only those who say, “I am of Cephas,” “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos.” It just as definitely and just as clearly denounces those who say, “I am of Christ.” It is not wrong to consider oneself as belonging only to Christ; it is right and even essential. Nor is it wrong to repudiate all schism among the children of God; it is highly commendable. God does not condemn this class of Christians for either of these two things; He condemns them for the very sin they condemn in others—their sectarianism. As a protest against division among the children of God, many believers seek to divide those who do not divide from those who do, and never dream that they themselves are divisive! Their ground of division may be more plausible than that of others who divide on the ground of doctrinal differences, or personal preference for certain leaders, but the fact remains that they are dividing the children of God. Even while they repudiate schism elsewhere, they are schismatic themselves.

When you say, “I am of Christ,” [or "We are on the ground of oneness"] do you mean to say others are not? It is perfectly legitimate for you to say, “I am of Christ,” if your remark merely implies to whom you belong; but if it implies, “I am not sectarian; I stand quite differently from you sectarians,” then it is making a difference between you and other Christians. The very thought of distinguishing between the children of God has its springs in the carnal nature of man, and is sectarian. If we look on other believers as sectarian and consider ourselves to be non-sectarian, we are immediately differentiating between God’s people and thereby manifesting a divisive spirit even in the very act of condemning division. No matter by what means we distinguish between the members of God’s family—even if it be on the pretext of Christ Himself—we are guilty of schism in the Body.

What then is right? All exclusiveness is wrong. All inclusiveness (of true children of God) is right. Denominations are not scriptural, and we ought to have no part in them, but if we adopt an attitude of criticism and think, “They are denominational; I am undenominational. They belong to sects; I belong to Christ alone”—such differentiating is definitely sectarian. Yes, praise God I am of Christ, but my fellowship is not merely with those who say, “I am of Christ,” but with all who are of Christ. [Fellowship here would also pertain to the table, right?] All the while we must maintain an attitude of inclusiveness, not exclusiveness, towards those believers who are in different sects, for they, as we, are children of God, and they live in the same locality; therefore, they belong to the same church as we do. For ourselves, we cannot join any sect or remain in one, for our church connection can only be on local ground, but in regard to others we must not make leaving a sect the condition of fellowship with those believers who are in a sect. That will make undenominationalism our church ground, instead of locality. Let us be clear on this point, that an undenominational church is not a local church. There is a vast difference between the two. A local church is undenominational, and it is positive and inclusive; but an undenominational church is not a local church, and it is negative and exclusive.



(4)DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES. In the Greek the word rendered “heresies” in Galatians 5:20 [KJV] does not necessarily convey the thought of error, but rather of division on the ground of doctrine. The Interlinear New Testament translates it as “sects,” while Darby in his New Translation renders it “schools of opinion.” The whole thought here is not of the difference between truth and error, but of division based upon doctrine. My teaching may be right or it may be wrong, but if I make it a cause of division, then I am guilty of the “heresy” spoken of here.


Should we arrive at a place where a church has already been established on clear local ground, and discover that its members hold views which we consider unscriptural, or that they consider the views we hold as unscriptural, if we then refuse to recognize them as the church of God in that locality and withdraw from fellowship, we are divisive. The question is not whether they agree with our presentation of truth, but whether they are standing on clear church ground.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am sure everyone loves Jesus, everyone says that. Suppose a man has a genuine wife and 4 mistresses. Your answer is equivalent to saying that it does not matter which is the genuine wife and which is the mistress because they all love the same man very much.

If there is no reason to not meet with other assemblies, then isn't it divisive for the church in Scottsdale to meet independently of other churches? Why not just meet with the baptists or the Lutherans? Doesn't this send a message or testimony of division to the world?

For me it's very simple. Is your gathering the original church in Scottsdale or is it a church which came from the original one?

Originally Posted by aron

Now you are shuffling words around - "groups" and "churches" and "gatherings". The word "church" by definition means a gathering.

Peter the illiterate fisherman and Paul the sophisticated urban Pharisee preached the same gospel in the book of Acts, that God had raised Jesus from the dead. Everything we do and speak and live is either a furtherance of this testimony or a distraction from it; this applies both as individuals and when collectively assembled together. As Stg has said, it's a message wholly centered on redeeming love. The Son loved the Father and obeyed, and the Father loved the Son and raised him to glory. There is nothing else.

Originally Posted by aron

I've already given you a NT 'ekklesia' not of Jesus in Acts 19:41. The word was in common use, and predated the gospels. It's not like Jesus invented it wholecloth in Matthew 16.

But if you want to condemn others for what you yourself practice, then you simply re-label and call it a "meeting" or "assembly".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If two groups of believers are completely independent and started at the same time and did not genuinely know about the other ones existing, then both are gatherings of the one genuine church in the city I would think.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ekklesia not of Jesus means churches not of Jesus? can you give examples of who these ekklesia were of?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So Evangelical asked me a question about whether the Scottsdale Church was THE CHURCH IN SCOTTSDALE or a sect. I went for a walk and asked the Lord about how to answer. I had some things I thought were fairly logical in mind, but when I came back I read the below post I referenced by Aron and realized - THAT'S IT!

It is just plain silly to get all caught up in this is a church or that isn't a church or this one's a sect, etc. Dare I say that it's childish and is just knowledge that will fail!? Well, I believe it is.

Brothers, the Lord said they will know us by our love, not about our great teachings! Right? And, again, the great teachings of knowledge will fail - even the good ones. Paul said this, right? Anything else sort of falls into a "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" thing - this will not testify to the world anything (other than old man Adam).

As Aron said, when we're focused on this sort of childish thing, we're not focused on pursuing Christ. No, we're not.

Just please go back an read Aron's post (post #71), slowly. (What we're going around and around about here isn't it!)

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So Evangelical asked me a question about whether the Scottsdale Church was THE CHURCH IN SCOTTSDALE or a sect. I went for a walk and asked the Lord about how to answer. I had some things I thought were fairly logical in mind, but when I came back I read the below post I referenced by Aron and realized - THAT'S IT!

It is just plain silly to get all caught up in this is a church or that isn't a church or this one's a sect, etc. Dare I say that it's childish and is just knowledge that will fail!? Well, I believe it is.

Brothers, the Lord said they will know us by our love, not about our great teachings! Right? And, again, the great teaching will fail. Paul said this, right? Anything else sort of falls into a "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" thing - this will not testify to the world anything (other than old man Adam).

As Aron said, when we're focused on this sort of thing, we're not focused on pursuing Christ. No, we're not.

Just please go back an read Aron's post again post #71), slowly. What we're going around and around about here isn't it!

Originally Posted by aron

Did the 'ekklesia' of Acts 19:41 which was dismissed by the town clerk consider itself to the the "genuine church in the city" in Ephesus? Did the 'ekklesia' that Paul wrote greeting to in Romans 16:5 consider itself the "genuine church in that city"? If so, why didn't Paul call it as such?

We tend to read a 19th and 20th-century meaning back on a 1st- and 2nd-century text, and these are the kinds of presuppositions we need hold in order to ask the kind of questions we're asking.

I'd say, rather, that a "genuine church" doesn't consider whether it's the "genuine church" or not, simply because it has neither time nor inclination for such fancies. Instead it's focused on Jesus Christ, as Lord, Saviour, and Ruler of the kings of the earth. There's nothing else to consider. Everything else that comes into being comes from this one singularity (Heb 1:2; John 1:3). There's no need for our divided attention. Focus on "the one thing" and everything else is taken care of (Luke 10:42). Focus on anything else and the subtle one has room for his machinations. The "house of mirrors" begins - what is 'genuine' and 'proper' and so forth.

The Body doesn't focus on the Body - it's focused on the Head. The Bride doesn't consider itself but the Bridegroom. The only reality is in Jesus Christ, nothing else; nothing else is worth even considering.

There's no "ground" nor "ministry" nor "present truth" nor "present move" nor anything else. Jesus is the Minister of the Age. Jesus is the Faithful Witness. There is no other. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews said, "We see Jesus" (2:8). When you see Jesus there's nothing else.

Originally Posted by aron

It's very simple - Jesus used the words "my ekklesia" because there were ekklesia not of Jesus. Like the one dismissed by the Ephesian town clerk in Acts 19:41. There were lots of ekklesia. All were genuine, by your term. But not all were of Jesus. Nor were any perforce delimited by city boundaries.

Originally Posted by aron

I thought Christ was all in all? You have to leave Christ to park your car?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Then we have the matter of elders, apostles, prophecy, baptism, food and seating arrangements to take care of. Parking ones car (or donkey, in ancient times), also important.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's very simple - Paul does not use the language "genuine church" because there was not such thing as a "false church" at the time.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

. . a number of these churches are controlled by lesbians. . . any group of believers can claim to be a church. Most Christians cannot discern the difference between a church (genuine) and a sect.

Originally Posted by aron

For confirmation of my points, look up the words "true church" or "recovered church" or "genuine church" and see how many unique hits you get. How many have fallen for this fatuous nonsense. Either God raised Jesus from the dead, or no. Either we believe, or no. Only Jesus Christ is real and genuine and true. The rest is presumption.

Originally Posted by aron

Did the 'ekklesia' of Acts 19:41 which was dismissed by the town clerk consider itself to the the "genuine church in the city" in Ephesus? Did the 'ekklesia' that Paul wrote greeting to in Romans 16:5 consider itself the "genuine church in that city"? If so, why didn't Paul call it as such?

Originally Posted by Trapped

In my question I did not refer to Scottsdale. I am not talking about "Witness Lee's groups" or "StG's group". We are talking about the principles of determining a genuine church. Human names do not play a factor in determining the genuineness of a church.

I am speaking of a situation where two different groups that have no connection or offshooting one from another, who completely independently from each other, both consider themselves the genuine church in that city and believe all other gatherings are NOT the genuine church. In that case, which one is the genuine church? Are you saying it is just who claimed dibbsies first? If so, what if they were established at the same time? Which one, regardless of what they think about themselves, is truly the genuine church?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Does it consider itself the genuine church in the city or but one of many genuine churches (including denominations etc)?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am waiting to hear from Sons to Glory about whether their church is a church or a sect. If it's a church then there is no reason not to have the Lord's Table there, but if a sect then there is a reason.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

*a church which splinters from the genuine church of one church per city is the genuine church - unlikely given that it is an off-shoot. The bible is silent about churches splintering and the one which splinters being called genuine. I believe the correct term for that is a sect or faction.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think we can tell by knowing which was there first. So which one was there first? The church established by Witness Lee or the church which Sons to Glory now claims is the genuine church in the city? which seems more like a faction of the original church established.

Originally Posted by Trapped

If you have two gatherings in a city, both of which consider themselves to be the genuine church and all other gatherings in that city NOT the genuine church, which one is the genuine church (regardless of what they think of themselves)?

Originally Posted by Trapped

So the requirement to be a genuine church is just to consider yourself the church in that city?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Depends who has the genuine lampstand so I don't think a local church member would take the table with another group if they are not genuine lampstand. If God told your leader to start the lampstand in the city then we should fellowship there so it depends if you have the lampstand or not?

A feature of a genuine lampstand is that each lampstand is identical in appearance. Can we say that the Church in Scottsdale is of the same appearance and same shining as other local churches? What is the dominant expression of the church, is it evangelical, free/brethren, pentecostal, liturgical ? etc. Does it consider itself the genuine church in the city?

One question - do you consider "the Church in Scottsdale" to be "the genuine church in the city"?: Or do you see it as just one of many genuine churches in the city. If it's like this it not shining the same light as other local churches.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is one requirement surely. Why would a genuine church not consider itself to be the church in the city?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Appearance - what it looks like - a denomination or a genuine city church?

Originally Posted by Trapped

So the requirement to be a genuine church is just to consider yourself the church in that city?

Originally Posted by Trapped

This does not provide any useful information as to what "same appearance and shining" means.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Does it consider itself the genuine church in the city or but one of many genuine churches (including denominations etc) ? If not, it is not of the same appearance and shining as other local churches which do.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Does it consider itself the genuine church in the city or but one of many genuine churches (including denominations etc) ?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's why I asked Sons to Glory if they consider their church "the church in the city" as per "the church in Corinth, the church in Ephesus etc", or only "a church in the city" (one of many in the city)

Originally Posted by Trapped

Can you provide some more concrete examples or definitions of "same appearance and same shining"? This is an important topic and I think it would help to make sure there is a common understanding of what the terms being used mean practically, rather than floating around in the undefined, nebulous realm of metaphorical terminology. When we talk about different groups of people in different cities "having the same appearance" or "the same shining", can you flesh out a little further what that actually means or how it is practically worked out? It would help me. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Can you provide some more concrete examples or definitions of "same appearance and same shining"? This is an important topic and I think it would help to make sure there is a common understanding of what the terms being used mean practically, rather than floating around in the undefined, nebulous realm of metaphorical terminology. When we talk about different groups of people in different cities "having the same appearance" or "the same shining", can you flesh out a little further what that actually means or how it is practically worked out? It would help me. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Let me see if I understand - so this doesn't actually apply to you now because you don't meet with the LC, right? I think you are saying someone with the LC would not take the table with us because we are not affiliated with LSM . . . is that correct?

Originally Posted by Trapped

Can you provide some more concrete examples or definitions of "same appearance and same shining"? This is an important topic and I think it would help to make sure there is a common understanding of what the terms being used mean practically, rather than floating around in the undefined, nebulous realm of metaphorical terminology. When we talk about different groups of people in different cities "having the same appearance" or "the same shining", can you flesh out a little further what that actually means or how it is practically worked out? It would help me. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A feature of a genuine lampstand is that each lampstand is identical in appearance. Can we say that the Church in Scottsdale is of the same appearance and same shining as other local churches? What is the dominant expression of the church, is it evangelical, free/brethren, pentecostal, liturgical ? etc. Does it consider itself the genuine church in the city?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Are you with the LC now, Terry? I was curious about this matter since we in Scottsdale don't take any names (legal name is, "The Church in Scottsdale") and it would seem therefore, for all LC intentions, we should not be a division. Is then the reason a LC saint wouldn't take the table with us here in Scottsdale, only because we are not now "officially" affiliated with the LC?

Originally Posted by Terry

I am not. It's not about what name is being taken than it is about the assembly you meet with. Do they have a relationship with LSM? If not, they meet in division because of not meeting on the proper ground.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Is then the reason a LC saint wouldn't take the table with us here in Scottsdale, only because we are not now "officially" affiliated with the LC?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Are you with the LC now, Terry? I was curious about this matter since we in Scottsdale don't take any names (legal name is, "The Church in Scottsdale") and it would seem therefore, for all LC intentions, we should not be a division. Is then the reason a LC saint wouldn't take the table with us here in Scottsdale, only because we are not now "officially" affiliated with the LC?

Originally Posted by Terry

Best way I can explain is ones meeting with the local churches believe they're meeting in oneness and everyone else is meeting divisively. May come and meet, but to take communion would be considered partaking of division.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I was hoping for more answers to this thread (thanks to those who did answer), so I want to direct this question to current LC saints: Would you take the table with us here in Scottsdale, since our legal name is "The Church in Scottsdale" and why or why not?

FYI - I know of a brother who gathers with us here in Scottsdale, whose father routinely meets with the LC in another state. When his father visits here he will come to gatherings, but he will not take the table with us. I think the reason he stated was something about "violating the oneness." I'm hoping someone could explain further what this means, as it doesn't make sense to me . . .

Originally Posted by Ohio

The church in Scottsdale was born out of Bill Freeman's excommunication by Lee.

Does the church in Scottsdale have any fellowship with the adjacent church in Phoenix? Can they come to your meetings and break bread? And vice versa?

If Phoenix and Scottsdale began to fellowship, would not Blendeds from HQ be sent to stop it?

Originally Posted by Indiana

You asked the ALL-IMPORTANT QUESTION about who would take the table with you in Scottsdale. It's NOT those who chose to "range themselves around a gifted leader" in a universal movement for oneness with a man and a ministry. Witness Lee became a factor of oneness and of division in the churches; and that brother's father was swept away with them to the ground they hold today. It is a special ground, but not the Body ground, which they once had when blessings did abound.


"Dear Brother Lee. After hearing your fellowship in this elders’ training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord’s recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression.

We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth.

We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God’s New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord’s ministry and the one wise
master builder among us...." (1986 letter from 417 elders, intl elders' conf.)

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I was hoping for more answers to this thread (thanks to those who did answer), so I want to direct this question to current LC saints: Would you take the table with us here in Scottsdale, since our legal name is "The Church in Scottsdale" and why or why not?

FYI - I know of a brother who gathers with us here in Scottsdale, whose father routinely meets with the LC in another state. When his father visits here he will come to gatherings, but he will not take the table with us. I think the reason he stated was something about "violating the oneness." I'm hoping someone could explain further what this means, as it doesn't make sense to me . . .

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I was hoping for more answers to this thread (thanks to those who did answer), so I want to direct this question to current LC saints: Would you take the table with us here in Scottsdale, since our legal name is "The Church in Scottsdale" and why or why not?

FYI - I know of a brother who gathers with us here in Scottsdale, whose father routinely meets with the LC in another state. When his father visits here he will come to gatherings, but he will not take the table with us. I think the reason he stated was something about "violating the oneness." I'm hoping someone could explain further what this means, as it doesn't make sense to me . . .

Originally Posted by Drake

That’s incoherent.

Not interested in unraveling your knotted logic.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

There is very limited interaction between Scottsdale and Phoenix . . . very limited. At least that's my impression. I went to a gathering there many years ago and I believe one or two leading bros here have some occasional contact, albeit I think very, very infrequently.

As far as taking the table in Scottsdale, if a person has been born again with the new life & nature of Christ, they are certainly welcome here to sup with us! (Therefore this certainly includes the saints who meet as the LC in Phoenix.) In fact, I do wish they would come fellowship and take the table with us! This would make my spirit joyful, just as when any new ones join us!

Not sure about the vice versa, but I hope so.

FYI - I plan to ask a brother at the Thursday brothers' breakfast about some things related to SC background, and some of these things we've been discussing.

("Until we all arrive at the unity of the faith . . . a full-grown man" Eph 4:13 In reality - in spirit - we are all one and that is just the fact. I believe one day soon the oneness may be manifested very quickly. The Lord can do this - change hearts & minds of saints instantly. We saw after 9/11 how fast all the divides came down in the secular world. If something major happened in the spiritual realm and we all got really serious with God, I believe Christians would drop all the silly things that separate us in a heartbeat.)

Originally Posted by Ohio

The church in Scottsdale was born out of Bill Freeman's excommunication by Lee.

Does the church in Scottsdale have any fellowship with the adjacent church in Phoenix? Can they come to your meetings and break bread? And vice versa?

If Phoenix and Scottsdale began to fellowship, would not Blendeds from HQ be sent to stop it?

Originally Posted by Drake

Fair enough Trapped.

I have not been in every local church and Sons To Glory would argue the church in Scottsdale is one example. So I cannot say with 100% certainty worldwide. However, speaking from my own experience in those churches or localities that I have lived or visited I can say none.... for sure.

Why?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

The out of whack part is the ministry is for the churches NOT that a church dedicated to the writings of Witness Lee.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

STG,

Paul indicated we should consider and examine when partaking the table. If someone does not want to then you should receive him anyway. He has his reasons.

Brother Lee taught that whenever we go someplace we should blend in and to the extent afforded we should do as they do. If they speak in tongues learn to speak in tongues. If they roll on the floor, learn to roll on the floor.

Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Not my worldview, but my experience. Each “Local Church” in the “oneness” I’ve visited or know of first hand have followed the writings of Witness Lee, no doubt about that. I could go take a picture of the literature in the church book room, their Bibles , and the hymn books as my proof (or would that still be in my filter?)

Drake, since I’m so out of whack here, please set me straight. What is a locality that doesn’t dedicate their church to the writings of Witness Lee? I don’t need an exhaustive list, one name is fine.

**edits for mistypes on new iPhone

Originally Posted by Trapped

Drake,

I made no such connection, claim, or implication that implied any disproving that the ministry is for the churches. That was not in my mind at all. My first sentence was simply agreeing with you that the ministry should be for the churches. Agreed.

My second sentence was a return to LofT's original question/line of thought. I was not drawing any connection, conclusion, or claim between the first and second sentence. If it helps, you can add the phrase "Back to the original thought" before my question to help make a distinction, because that was my intention when I wrote it.

Based on your initial response of "If none...", should I infer that your answer to the standalone question of "What is a locality in which Witness Lee (and Nee)'s books are NOT the primary ones read from, referenced, or sold?" is "none"?

Originally Posted by Drake

Trapped,

If none, how does that unprove the ministry is for the churches?

Drake

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yes, the ministry should be for the churches.

What is a locality in which Witness Lee (and Nee)'s books are NOT the primary ones read from, referenced, or sold?

Whether it be The Holy Word for Morning Revival, another ministry book by Lee/Nee, or the Recovery Version of the Bible (translated and footnoted by Lee)?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

So all the churches in the “oneness” are dedicated to the work of Witness Lee, but for the churches - not for the sake of Witness Lee?

Originally Posted by Drake

The out of whack part is the ministry is for the churches NOT that a church dedicated to the writings of Witness Lee. So, not one but all of them that I know of or ever been a part of.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

The out of whack part is the ministry is for the churches NOT that a church dedicated to the writings of Witness Lee. So, not one but all of them that I know of or ever been a part of.

Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Not my worldview, but my experience. Each “Local Church” in the “oneness” I’ve visited or know of first hand have followed the writings of Witness Lee, no doubt about that. I could go take a picture of the literature in the church book room, their Bibles , and the hymn books as my proof (or would that still be in my filter?)

Drake, since I’m so out of whack here, please set me straight. What is a locality that doesn’t dedicate their church to the writings of Witness Lee? I don’t need an exhaustive list, one name is fine.

**edits for mistypes on new iPhone

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks! So perhaps it's not a dogmatic thing with those in TLR. So the brother I wrote of earlier who was in TLR elsewhere and wouldn't take the table here because he said it would "violate the oneness" . . . Are you saying it's a matter of individual conscience and not a specific LC teaching?

(and again we have nothing formal to do with the LC or the authority thereof - unless you count being one in Spirit . . .)

Originally Posted by Drake

Nope.

LofT is reading my post through the filter of his worldview.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Nope.

LofT is reading my post through the filter of his worldview.

Drake

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, you can pretty much read whoever author you want here - hopefully it's edifying and centered on Christ!

So does that exclude us in Scottsdale?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Per StG - The church is not dedicated to the reading of Witness Lee. So I don't think they'd be considered acceptable for members of the LSM churches. Am I getting that wrong?

Originally Posted by Drake

However, taking the name of the church in ..... alone is not meaningful as there is more to oneness than the name. Not taking the name is meaningful as it indicates meeting on a different ground. Yet, I have not followed Brother Bill since he left the Lord's recovery so frankly I do not know on what ground he established the churches under his direction.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I was hoping for more answers to this thread (thanks to those who did answer), so I want to direct this question to current LC saints: Would you take the table with us here in Scottsdale, since our legal name is "The Church in Scottsdale" and why or why not?

Originally Posted by Indiana

Excerpt from Speaking the Truth in Love by J. Ingalls -- Summer Training and Elders’ Meetings in Anaheim July 1988

The summer training began in Anaheim on June 29th and covered the first part of Leviticus . . . Following the training Brother Lee called for two elders’ meetings to be held on Saturday morning, July 9th. There were approximately four hundred elders and learning elders present. Brother Lee gave two messages: in the first he spoke on God’s administration and addressed the matters of "autonomy" and "federation". This was a very clear reference to the things I had spoken regarding the local administration of the churches, warning against the dangers of church affiliation or federation, which lead to central control and denominationalism. Brother Lee believed strongly that my stress on local administration would lead to the independence of all the local churches. As a matter of fact, I never once in all my speaking used the word "autonomy." But in Brother Lee’s own publication, The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches, the word "autonomy" is used positively two times.

I believe Brother Lee felt that, by my speaking, his concept of all the local churches moving and acting as one body under his leadership was threatened. Therefore, he fought against the imagined devil, autonomy, in every conference of his for months to come, referring to it as a wind of teaching brought in by the sleight of men to fabricate a system of error. The word "federation," which I did indeed use, offended him greatly. He believed I was classifying all the local churches under his leadership as a federation, whereas he insisted they were the "organic Body of Christ." He began to use the word "organic" frequently. I wish the churches were so organic. We were witnessing so much that was absolutely inorganic among the churches, things that were rather organizational and exhibiting signs of a hierarchy, for example in the FTTT. Therefore, I warned the saints against a kind of federation. Actually, I used the word "affiliation" much more, which is a milder form of federation, but nonetheless fraught with perils. The local churches had surely become an affiliation.

We had seen that in church history, whenever the Lord had raised up groups of His people for His testimony, they had persistently degraded into denominations; and the first two signs of this degradation were unfailingly: 1) the affiliating of the groups under a central leadership; 2) the establishing of a central training center, where their full-time workers could be educated and equipped to serve in their sphere of fellowship. When these two steps had eventualized, they were well on their way to becoming just another denomination, however advanced in the knowledge of truth they were. It was more than obvious that we in the local churches had taken those identical steps and were going down the same road. Should we remain silent?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I was hoping for more answers to this thread (thanks to those who did answer), so I want to direct this question to current LC saints: Would you take the table with us here in Scottsdale, since our legal name is "The Church in Scottsdale" and why or why not?

FYI - I know of a brother who gathers with us here in Scottsdale, whose father routinely meets with the LC in another state. When his father visits here he will come to gatherings, but he will not take the table with us. I think the reason he stated was something about "violating the oneness." I'm hoping someone could explain further what this means, as it doesn't make sense to me . . .

Originally Posted by Indiana

"Today we should also make everything simple. Wherever we go and wherever we are, we have to be one with the other saints. In any place you should not separate yourself from other saints. As long as they are not divisive, you have to join them and be one with them. We may say that we are free, that we are not denominational, and that we are not sectarian, yet we are separated and would not come together as the one expression of the Body of Christ in this one city. This shows that we are wrong, and this is a real test to us, proving that we still have something that is not of the Lord. If we are really for the Lord and are absolutely of the Lord, we will come together in our locality as the one expression of the one Body of Christ. There is no reason and no right for anyone to keep his group separated from others. This is the test. (The Life and Way to Practice the Church Life,p.105-107)

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

This is more of a hypothetical question I'm posing, because I wonder if some on here would not perhaps take the table with us and/or meet with us.

I'm supposing that believers that wouldn't enjoy the Lord's table with us might have two reasons:

1. They might not want to have anything to do with a group who has some "background" or any vague resemblance to the LC

2. They might say we were just another division because we are not on the genuine ground of oneness

So here's a brief history and description - at least what I know of it - regarding the "Scottsdale Church" (that's what's on the sign out front. Not sure, but the official legal name may still be "The Church in Scottsdale" if that makes any difference). The group formed up in the Seattle area in (I believe) the early 1980s and Bill Freeman was a key person. In the mid to late 1980s the group broke from the central control of the Church in Anaheim and many felt of the Lord to move down to Scottsdale, AZ.

There was a robust number of around 200 saints (a rough guess, maybe more with the campus fellowship) in Scottsdale until 1998, when Bill & Patsy Freeman left the group. A number left with the Freemans. I started meeting regularly here about that time.

For me these have been the very best two decades of my Christian life by far! The group here is very open to all other believers. There is no official affiliation with any group, yet we enjoy fellowship with everyone. There is no one person we look to for ministry and a wide variety of authors (including Nee and on occasion even WL), speakers, song writers, etc. that are shared between us - if there is something genuinely of Christ, we want it!

The meetings have an open format similar to the LC, but no restrictions are placed on what can be shared whatsoever. If someone has a fresh experience of Christ, an insight or even a problem they need prayer for, they are free to share. (The singing and expression of the love of Christ is awesome!) Legalism is very actively suppressed (since many have felt its sting over the years) - I marvel at the freedom in Christ that we have.

Personally, I see this group as having all the upside of things that were promoted by "The Recovery" and none of the downsides!

So again, if you were in the area, would you come and enjoy the Lord with us and take the Lord's table with us? (all are certainly welcome)
And please, I would also appreciate an explanation of why or why not.
Thanks!

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Was there something in particular you thought would be scary? Haha

Originally Posted by least

I surely will. (if am in the area)

Because you welcome me. I go as a believer in Jesus. I am saved and baptised. Born again child of God. I am a member of the body of Christ.
And because of what you describe of yourself and and your gathering (church). You are also saved in Jesus Christ and are members of the body of Christ.

Your two reasons for believers who wouldn't join you are the same for ppl who distant me.

God bless.
-

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Awesome! So nothing I wrote scared you off, eh?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I probably haven't read all of your posts, but from what I have - it sounds like a great little community there. I'm not in the Scottsdale area, but if I ever head that way I'll reach out and would love to visit!

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So again, if you were in the area, would you come and enjoy the Lord with us and take the Lord's table with us? (all are certainly welcome)
And please, I would also appreciate an explanation of why or why not.[/b]