Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Debelak
YP:
Your post brought to mind, somewhat, the phrase "to each his own." It is certainly something when a Christian group - who internally believes to be following God's way - can nevertheless be nonjudgmental of local free groups around them. The question I have, however, is whether there is an affirmative obligation to engage, meet with, coordinate with, etc... the other groups around you? Or is mutual respect enough?
Put another way, is it the 'local church' when they don't actually, in time and space, assemble?
Peter
|
I do not advocate "to each his own" but you have asked a good question, Peter.
Based upon the concept of the locality doctrine I have received, and tell me if you did not hear this, but the brothers and sisters in the Baptist churches in my locality are in actuality part of the unique assembly of God here, simply, and unfortunately, are meeting in a division.
One clear mandate is THAT we assemble. Those who assemble are obviously the assembly. Those who would decline to coordinate for the practical purposes for which coordination is directed in the New Testament demonstrate their intention to remain separate and then we don't need to concern ourselves with further analysis. But the thinking gets off when a group attempts to establish and maintain some form of group identity other than that of the general assembly in our respective places which we are all spontaneously a part of by faith in Christ.
The Local Church makes a pretense of having such a general assembly identity as their only character but, at least, for those of us fellowshipping here, we can honestly state with knowledge that this is not true and that such a claim is unfortunately a false self-delusion. I would like to tell my dear brothers there that no matter how strenuously you insist that you are in the genuine "local churches," your strong will cannot change at least this reality. You are in something else and you can't see it and you need the eye salve, dear brothers. (This really breaks my heart.)
In other words, if I understand you correctly, Peter, you postulate Group A and Group B who decline to cooperate in the breaking of the bread. I don't think you can rely upon "mutual respect" to win the day there. Anyone who declines to break bread with another genuine believer for anything but reasons of gross sinfulness is themselves guilty of causing a division. To say "we break bread as and with Group A and not as and with Group B" is the very definition of a division. Someone else may know the verses better than I do but I think I have seen this principle by now. Again, if we declare that our bread breaking is in oneness but only give lip service to the notion as it relates to someone else doing the same thing, our oneness isn't really oneness. Yet surely our lack of oneness, or any other grave problems that might be seen in the churches in Revelation, doesn't destroy God's desire and purpose in the Christian meetings. He earnestly seeks to be manifested among His saints and will build all the saints together into the unique assembly as those saints afford Him opportunity.
It's not a matter of our declarations or considerations. It's a matter of His inward realities and outward expressions.
On a further point, it is against nothing in the New Testament that there are parties within the assembly, even if the ultimate goal is to be in one accord. Parties are simply not the same thing as making a division. The word "quarantine" comes to my mind in this context. If some brothers feel that some other brother's teaching is problematic, divisive, confusing, etc., does "turning away" really mean "disfellowshipping?" I do not think so. The correct response is to help the saints to understand what the problems are with the other teachings and to show them what the Bible actually says which contradicts such things.
Coming back to my main point, even if that brother's worrisome teachings continue to be a trouble to you, how do you ban him from the table meetings? How do you have that right, unless this is YOUR table meeting, rather than the Lord's table meeting? Those who fail to discern the Body will be dealt with directly by the Lord.
All of these things of churchiness proceed from not honoring the Lord's real headship of His Body in our practical assembly and instead relying upon the notion of the "universal church" and the exercise of the "deputy authority" therein. God's authority is a big theme in the New Testament but it is not something to be played with and immitated as we have seen shamefully done in so many ways. We cannot assume we have God's authority by reason of maleness, age, loyalty, correctness, or any of the other reasons for which people in the world assert they have the right to be acknowledged as the leader in charge. When God's speaking is frustrated, He'll use a donkey.
You know, Witness Lee used to use the word "inoculate" when discussing how to deal with various dissenting opinions. That's a good word. It means you are working on something to help fight off the sickness from within. "Quarantine" has a similar relationship to the semantic domain of "health" but it implies that a diagnosis has been made by an expert and that the recommended solution is further separation. I don't think that's such a good word. And practically speaking, I'll be frank, "quarantine" as I have heard practiced by the Local Church, is really just "amputation." That's the technique of either the most extreme life-saving last-hope measure or an unskilled surgeon. And there is no hope of healing from an amputation.
I have more within me but I have no more time at present.
I apologize that I must stop here.