[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I pretty much agree with what you have said except for your conclusion. I feel WN saw the division among different Christian groups and sought for a "solution". I think that is pretty much his testimony on it. I feel that effort is worthwhile. He also came up with a couple of verses showing that there was essentially a practical expression of one "universal" body with one "church in one city". However, everything breaks down when you try to get a practical working out of that.

So I don't agree that there is no cause for discussion. Rather I feel it was a failed attempt at a solution. It may be that these verses do in fact hold the key to a solution, or it may turn out they don't. But discussing the Lord's burden that they would all be one is definitely worthwhile. Reading the Bible looking for solutions to issues that we have is worthwhile. But, it is time for many to realize that the LRC application is not the solution rather it is more of the problem.

I won't comment on Lee's version because I think we all have problems with it.

But while Nee's is clearly not some kind of didactic "you must go my way" thing, as a solution, I think we have previously concluded (maybe before your time here) that it had nowhere to go other than to ultimately separate based on seeing and accepting his version of what is church (or somebody else's) and dropping everything else.

I am more and more convinced that the best solution is what is mostly happening today. And that is that we acknowledge that we don't agree on everything, we do have a level of comfort in practicing in certain ways that others do not necessarily feel as comfortable with, and outside of how we practice and play with our peculiar nonessentials, we really are one. We might argue until we are blue in the face over some points that are more extreme in difference, but except in a few cases, end the argument by praying together and going out to eat together, joining together in community outreach, etc.

And it is the very seeking for a solution to the "division" issue when we will always divide at some level, even if we have only smaller assemblies. There will always be some reason that I (or you, or whoever) will meet with someone who is not merely the physically closest assembly. It may simply be a matter of comfort. Of a need for particular "gifts" that might accrue in my direction. I note that in a blog I read periodically written by a guy who has had a church in his house for several years admits that without seeking outside help from other Christian groups (which includes larger more typical denominations, free groups, etc.) they do not always have the help internally that they need. We can argue that the Spirit can supply that need, but it is presumptive to demand that it would simply happen within that small group. The body is greater than an assembly, so just because he has given gifts as needed does not mean that a little church of 10 has everything within its little group. They are not the body, but a body, and part of the body.

And I'm sure that the next question will be how to differentiate between the body and a body. And my response is that this whole line of reasoning is too aimed at getting everything so neatly figured out. Fix all the problems. Come up with solutions that don't leave us with divisions and names. I'm not convinced that this is the most important thing we need to be focused upon. I believe that it is much more important that we each are engaged in living, obeying, praying, worshiping, etc., than getting everything arranged in the best way. Just like we are given the strength to withstand our personal problems that are not simply taken away by God, we should also withstand the need to fix all of our "practice" problems just because we think we can.

OK. I'll bite. How will we do communion? (And will someone have a cow because I called it "communion"?) What kind of music. How will we baptize? Will we baptize only believers, or the whole household? (I lean to believers only — pretty strongly — but what does that "and their whole household" thing mean?) Will we teach a kind of Calvinism? Or at least believe that? Or something more Arminian? Or something in between? And what do we do with those who a convinced that something different is the right way? Are they denied the right to speak out about their opinion on the subject unless it is in the context of an open discussion for the purpose of exploring alternatives?

How many of those kinds of issues will you actually be faced with and keep everyone in your small proximity assembly happy? Will you allow three to speak in tongues every meeting? Will you emphasize the tongues and miracles or deemphasize them?

Get used to homophily. Birds of a feather will flock together. It doesn't make other birds not birds. Or deny others the right to fly. And despite Lee's (and the LRC's) constant look at the landscape through the lens of the 1960s, things are not like they were then. Just like Corinth seems to have changed between the first and second letter. Were they all meeting in one place? Not obvious. Although I do believe there was a reference to "when the whole church gets together" (in more modern wording).

My problem with the whole church-city thing is that it is almost the creation of a problem, or at least the exacerbation of one, so that a solution can be supplied. Is Christianity as broken as we have learned to believe, or are we forcing problems onto it that don't exist in the way we think, and despite all the claims otherwise, is actually changing for the better.

And all of this discussion is coming at one of those times in the history of the church when there is significant upheaval related to many things that are not addressed by such a thing as one-church-one-city. In fact, it might be that within 100 years (assuming that we continue to rick on here) the kind of assembly that Nee, Lee, and the LRC have proposed (as similar or different as any of those may be) could be essentially obsolete in some sense. Not because the church is obsolete, but because so much of its existence, practice, emphasis, etc., changes very drastically.

You think I sometimes emphasize the "obey" side of the gospel more than we are used to. Just wait 100 years and it may be the predominant thing. All this talk about dirt may be irrelevant. Everyone may be regularly meeting in 3 or 4 different contexts over the course of a few weeks such that their "allegiance" is not obvious or even discernible. Have their practice spread between things that look Baptist, Charismatic, Presbyterian, and RCC/Anglican. Not all at once, but all accepted and practiced.