Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

newman263 · 07-26-2023, 12:18 PM

Sparks comments on WL’s “Water contained in a glass (a vessel)” metaphor for “Christ contained in the church” were prophetic. Believers are earthen vessels made by God the potter (Roman 9:21-23). The church would be a collection of such vessels, forming a corporate vessel of honor. Therefore, the metaphor would be a reasonable conclusion from scripture, and (to me) could be applied to any church group over the twenty centuries,
EXCEPT…----->>> This metaphor camouflaged WL’s intention (which was already being implemented, and was evident in 1952, at least to Sparks) to wall off his congregations from any sort of communications with the rest of Christianity.

I now surmise: He was imitating J. N. Darby, who (in 1848) led the Exclusive Brethren assemblies to unite as one, in order to separate or be separated from (exclude or be excluded from, cut off or be cut off from) the rest of the Brethren assemblies. Darby did this mainly for fear of outside contamination of his own ministry and work (arguably by that time already very prevailing and widely respected) by any source that was (Christian, but) non-Darby, including anti-Darby. I now conclude: That Sparks was predicting that a church group would remain, or become, too small, IF / WHEN the leadership decided to intentionally wall off its members from the rest of Christianity.

From what I heard or read online of the hurt and complaints from ex-Exclusive-Brethren members, I recognized many similarities to those from ex-LC members. So, the policy’s side effects are similar. The hurt and complaints may differ very much in degree from locality to locality: The degree to which the leadership in any one locality interprets this policy (of exclusivity) determines the extent of the local limiting of liberties on the non-essential items (truths/ doctrines/ practices/ experiences) (i.e., treating many non-essential items as though they were essential). (Remember the old Christian axiom?: “In essentials, Unity; in non-essentials, Liberty; in all things, Charity (love)”)

The concern for the congregation, under a policy of severe exclusivity, is that no one is really ever free from the risk of one day being “excluded” (individually or en-masse) due to holding to an unfavored non-essential item (no one, including those who earnestly pursue Christ, in the way the Bereans did in Acts 17).

(Disclaimer:The opinions are my own; I have colluded with nobody; and I hope I am man-pleasing nobody).

07-26-2023, 12:18 PM	#13
newman263 Member Join Date: Apr 2023 Posts: 9	Re: Morris Fred on W. Lee and T. A. Sparks Sparks comments on WL’s “Water contained in a glass (a vessel)” metaphor for “Christ contained in the church” were prophetic. Believers are earthen vessels made by God the potter (Roman 9:21-23). The church would be a collection of such vessels, forming a corporate vessel of honor. Therefore, the metaphor would be a reasonable conclusion from scripture, and (to me) could be applied to any church group over the twenty centuries, EXCEPT…----->>> This metaphor camouflaged WL’s intention (which was already being implemented, and was evident in 1952, at least to Sparks) to wall off his congregations from any sort of communications with the rest of Christianity. I now surmise: He was imitating J. N. Darby, who (in 1848) led the Exclusive Brethren assemblies to unite as one, in order to separate or be separated from (exclude or be excluded from, cut off or be cut off from) the rest of the Brethren assemblies. Darby did this mainly for fear of outside contamination of his own ministry and work (arguably by that time already very prevailing and widely respected) by any source that was (Christian, but) non-Darby, including anti-Darby. I now conclude: That Sparks was predicting that a church group would remain, or become, too small, IF / WHEN the leadership decided to intentionally wall off its members from the rest of Christianity. From what I heard or read online of the hurt and complaints from ex-Exclusive-Brethren members, I recognized many similarities to those from ex-LC members. So, the policy’s side effects are similar. The hurt and complaints may differ very much in degree from locality to locality: The degree to which the leadership in any one locality interprets this policy (of exclusivity) determines the extent of the local limiting of liberties on the non-essential items (truths/ doctrines/ practices/ experiences) (i.e., treating many non-essential items as though they were essential). (Remember the old Christian axiom?: “In essentials, Unity; in non-essentials, Liberty; in all things, Charity (love)”) The concern for the congregation, under a policy of severe exclusivity, is that no one is really ever free from the risk of one day being “excluded” (individually or en-masse) due to holding to an unfavored non-essential item (no one, including those who earnestly pursue Christ, in the way the Bereans did in Acts 17). (Disclaimer:The opinions are my own; I have colluded with nobody; and I hope I am man-pleasing nobody).