Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped
I appreciate your objective assessments of the local church and other Christians. I agree about what you say each of them emphasize.
Okay, regarding contending with the ground of locality as an objective doctrine.....
There are two things going on:
The first is how the Bible often refers to the church. And it is indeed often referred to as "the church in ABC city". This would be called "the ground of locality", would you agree?
The second thing is the concept of the believers being one. The oneness of the church.
My contention is not that referring as "the church in ABC city" is wrong. My contention, based on what I've gotten from and agree with from that video, is that to claim that "if you are not meeting on the ground of locality then you cannot be in oneness" is wrong. The Bible never connects "meeting on the ground of locality" with "oneness". Everrrrrrrr.
|
The problem with this though, and I believe this is the crux of Lee's point on the matter, is that if believers are divided according to denomination, practice, beliefs, etc. how can they actually be one? This is both a spiritual and a practical problem. Spiritually if believers are not in the mingled spirit, not connected to God the spirit (John 4:24), then how can they be one with God, let alone one another? Practically if believers are not physically in the same location, thinking the one thing (Philippians 2:2), and practicing the same things, then how can they be one? I don't believe it's possible. What we see today is fragmented groups of believers all doing what is right in their own eyes. At best they all follow the creed or doctrines of their pastor (which btw the pastoral system is an obvious practice of clergy-laity). So at best they can only be one with the fragmented congregation that they happen to like and go to. But what about all the other believers in any given city?
One of the biggest attacks against Lee is that he was exclusive and wouldn't mix or mingle with those in the denominations. But do the denominations mix and mingle? In fact I think all doors are open from every party. Those in the denominations can visit each other, and those in the local churches can visit the denominations and vice versa. All are welcome everywhere I believe. But how often do any Christians visit any other churches strictly for blending and fellowship? Probably very rarely. I don't believe the LC ever shut its doors on any genuine Christian visiting from amongst the denominations. But it rarely happens. Why? Because Christians are too comfortable in their spots. To whatever extent that also goes for the local churches. Although it is often encouraged in the LC to go to other localities and blend
Anyway my point is that the very thing denominations accused Lee of they were guilty of themselves. Each sect has its own little culture and it's own little set of doctrinal practices. If someone were to come who practiced differently they probably wouldn't accept it
At any rate, how is there any semblance of oneness in this scenario? Are those in the denominations one? I don't think so. Realistically speaking the body of Christ is divided. Christians are scattered in every city. Moreover who amongst the Christians in any given city is actually exercising their spirit and one with God? So how could they be one with anything? Aside from their works and their like souled behavior in those works? At best in Christianity we get a nice message from a bought and paid for pastor who kills the spiritual function of the believers, quells their ability to prophesy (which builds up the church; 1 Corinthians 14:4), and more than likely feeds them with the leaven of the prosperity gospel, or worse teaches them some worldly behavior modification habits and misuses the Bible to support their message. At best you will get a pastor who knows the word some and will expound upon the word, but if we're honest to what direction do they expound upon the word? Invariably it will tie into better behavior, or sinless living, or at the very best maybe some nice talks on living righteously. But who in Christianity is focused on living Christ, loving Christ, being connected to Christ, pursuing Christ for mutual satisfaction, and being taught how to do all of it? I think that Lee is absolutely right in his assessment of how poor modern Christianity is. I see it all over, all the time, whenever I contact modern Christians and churches. I see only the exercise of the soul, I see little to no light in the word that they expound, and at best they exhibit charity and giving to the needy. The last one is the best thing they do. I suppose also it's better to go to a denominational church than to a movie. I'd much rather live in a city with a church on every corner than a movie theater on every corner. Or a bar on every corner. I suppose religion serves a decent purpose to at least keep people occupied with a semblance of the right thing as opposed to just all out satan's systemic places of death. But spiritually are these places full of life or full of death? Or are they stagnant?
As far as spiritual oneness, I don't see much of it in that scenario. Just a crowd of disjointed members. I don't see Christians exercising their spirits. I don't see Christians enjoying the spirit. I don't see Christians expressing God much, if at all, and I don't see much life of Christ. At least they're believers I guess. But I don't believe it's what God intended or wants
One of Lee's definitions for religion is 'doing something for God without Christ.' I think that is an apt definition of modern Christianity