Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped
But then he asks "what does the Bible mean by oneness?"
In all the discussion about oneness, there is essentially an assumption about what "being one" means. And so, to see what the Bible means by oneness, he literally goes through and looks at all the verses where some form of "one" is used, and then looks at the context of those verses.
And I think the point is that none of them ever connect the concept of "oneness" with "meeting on the basis of locality".
In other words, yes, the Bible does refer a lot of the time to a church as the "church in such-and-such city". And yes, the Bible does refer to the believers needing to be one. But where is the connection in the Bible that this oneness is accomplished by meeting as the church in your city?
There is no biblical connection of these concepts. Instead, the thing the Bible shows about oneness, is that "the expression of oneness" is not "meeting as the church in your city", but is actually doing good works in the name of the Father. And "being one" is presented not "on the basis of locality" but in terms of love, kindness, and mutual care. He goes into the verses which show this.
And so, if "meeting as the church in your city" IS NOT what the Bible means by "that they all may be one", then it is wrong to say that a believer who does not meet "on the ground of locality" is "in division", because "meeting on the ground of locality" is not what the Bible means by "being one" in the first place.
If Christians across various denominations come together to do things like carrying out the good works (that are even historically known to have marked the early Christians) in the name of God, if they love each other as brothers and sisters regardless of where they meet, if they "give each other the right hand of fellowship", give each other mutual care and honor, and come together to care for the needy/poor/widows, etc in their city.....that kind of thing is what the Bible means by "being one", and that kind of thing is all the Bible demands for oneness.
Any demand above that related to oneness is a "tradition of men" imposed by the coworkers, including "meeting on the basis of locality".
And this, frankly, Jay, matches my own personal experience too after I left the local church. When I was IN the local church, I recoiled from other Christians. I did NOT want to "visit their church". I felt, every time, that they were wrong, low, shallow, dead, all but unsaved, "didn't see the light", and on and on. They would reach out to me to make a Christian bond, but due to the ministry's almost disgust about them, I would regularly withdraw from their attempt at Christian connection, and that includes my extended family members, which loss of connection I still grieve to this day.
After leaving the local church, though, I have no problem joining the genuine Christians in my city to honor God with them, to help the needy, to volunteer, to share new realizations of God's Word, etc. The ministry drove a wedge between me and the rest of the Christians. Dropping the ministry brought me much more into the genuine expression of oneness Jesus prayed for.
|
Definitely a lot of food for thought here
But as far as my Bible reading is concerned. I believe that Jesus was talking about spiritual oneness in regards to "that may be one, father, as you and I are one." But there are different types of oneness. Paul says in Philippians 2:2 I urge you, then, to make me completely happy by having the same thoughts, sharing the same love, and being one in soul and mind (International standard version)
Philippians 2:2 Make my joy full, that you think the same thing, having the same love, joined in soul, thinking the one thing (Recovery version)
The difference between these two translations is kind of pertinent to the opposing concepts you and I are talking about. The ISV version is pretty general and could be more open to interpretation. You said you felt one with other Christians in their giving and their good works. But Lee's translation says 'thinking the one thing' which the ISV doesn't say. That little difference is probably huge. In the footnote he elaborates and says "According to the context of this book, the one thing here must refer to the subjective knowledge and experience of Christ (Phil. 1:20-21; 2:5; 3:7-9; 4:13). Christ, and Christ alone, should be the centrality and universality of our entire being. Our thinking should be focused on the excellency of the knowledge and experience of Christ. Focusing on anything else causes us to think differently, thus creating dissensions among us."
This type of oneness is in the soul and the mind, and apparently the spirit. Implying to share the same thoughts and be of the same spirit. It's not saying a oneness in spirit in the verse, but Lee is attaching it to the oneness of the spirit of Christ, particularly in our subjective knowledge and experiences of Him
In John 17:21 I believe Jesus was talking about a oneness in the spirit similar to how the triune God is one
Here's Lee's interpretation in his footnote for John 17:21. He says "This is the second aspect of the believers' oneness, the oneness in the Triune God through sanctification, separation from the world by the word of God. In this aspect of oneness the believers, separated from the world unto God, enjoy the Triune God as the factor of their oneness." So Lee's interpretation of John 17:21 is that the believers are one with one another through sanctification and separation from the world. Which that is yet another different type of oneness
So we see different types of oneness in the Bible. Which is all pretty confusing. I suppose I understand why people would just stop short because it's a lot to understand
I don't think though, that oneness has much to do with good works. But I suppose we could say that's a certain kind of oneness in a general sense. If a large stadium of people go to a football game, they are "one" in the sense that they're all at the football game. They are one physically in location.....but does any of it matter? I suppose if you say that God only blesses 'one group of people who are standing in oneness on the correct ground' and 'in the same thought, mind, and sprit of oneness' then it certainly does matter what is meant by oneness. Because according to Lee Christians who are not in the spirit are not one according to the Bible. And according to Lee Christians who are not meeting on the ground of locality are not really one according to the Bible. And according to Lee Christians who are not sanctified and seperated from the world are not one according to the Bible. Which are very very cut and dry pivotal things to say
Or another way to say it is that can Christians really be one if they're not exercising their spirit, seperated from the world, sanctified, and meeting on the correct ground? Which is a crucial question. I think if that's true it would be very hard for Christians to be one with one another. But I suppose it all hinges on the way you interpret the word. It would almost lend to judgements being passed on others such as "oh I can't be one with so and so brother because he watches TV," or "oh I can't be one with so and so sister because she dresses worldly." It sounds like a great way to create factions and schisms. But then some might say, "well we all just need to turn to our spirit because we can only be one in spirit." Which is kind of like glossing over all that other very strong and differentiating type of oneness. Or maybe that's the truth. Maybe we all just need to come together and be in spirit and be built up in spirit with one another
So is it all open to personal interpretation? Idk, is any of the Bible open to personal interpretation? Or is that dangerous? Is Lee's interpretation the only correct one? That's dangerous to say too. I guess we have to make up our own minds and work out our own salvation according to the best way we see fit and God will judge our works at the end. A questionable test? Or are the dominoes all set up around Lee's theology? If there's a hole in Lee's theology somewhere does the entire dominoes fall over? Should we throw out all of Lee's theology if he is wrong at a certain point or conflating two crucial ideas?