[MacDuff]

Ohio

If intolerant Christians were sufficient reason to quit

Bowing to the conviction of Christians that I’m not a Christian is not quitting anything. It’s acknowledging the point of view of the majority of Christians. Fundamentalist Christians aren’t the only ones to claim I’m not a Christian simply because I disagree with doctrines they think are considered universally essential. It’s an acknowledgment of a personal view that the term Christian was never intended to be a self-denotation of believers. The term is used only three times in the New Testament. The first use of the term doesn’t say “they called themselves Christians”, but rather “they were called Christians”. No New Testament writer referred to himself as a Christian. Though Peter’s reference is interpreted as such. It’s acknowledging a personal view that the term Christian is associated with what is a man-made religion, overtly manifested by its denominational character. It’s acknowledging that if there were believers truly gathering as the ekklesia in this city (as most denominations already think they are, including the Recovery), I would no longer have anything whatever to do with Christianity the religion. As it is, I have no choice but to attend a Church of Christianity, if I want to have a semblance of communal living that resembles even slightly what is described in the New Testament.

It’s not so uncommon to think I’m an Apostate quitter of the faith once given to the saints. I’ve had more than one Christian tell me to go back to mommy if I can’t take the heat. Which reveals, to me at least, a lot about how they understand their own religion. An understanding that becomes their witness to Christianity. A witness to a Christianity I would prefer to have nothing to do with. Which even more makes me not a Christian and outside of the Christ that is the Christ to those in that venue.

In my view, there should be something better than Christianity. Better than a natural religion that calls itself Christian and is what is commonly seen by men. Better than a religion considered just a part of a Judeo/Christian religious Tradition the essence of which can be taught in a secular university.

Where is the expression of Christ where believers actually express something supernatural, expressing humanity in Christ that expresses something like the Christ described in the Bible? Instead of expressing humanity in Adam as if there is no difference and expressing the nature of Cain as if it was the normal thing to do. A question I would no doubt not be asking if it weren’t for what I thought I experienced at Elden Hall almost forty years ago, that is not the same as the experience of the Recovery that I have experienced recently.

It has been said that the church is the battleground between God and His enemy.

Onward Christian soldiers, ehya? I left the military when my tour was up for a reason. Not my thing. Maybe that’s another reason why I’m not a Christian. Still not my thing.

If it is true (according to one thread) that Lee had a militaristic idea for the youth of the Recovery with headquarters in Anaheim, I side with those who disapprove. Smacks of Communism or Naziism. American ROTC? Besides, if it’s a Christian military one wants, the Salvation Army existed long before the Recovery and continues to exist.

Regarding 1Peter 5

By Ohio
I agree. Human leaders in the church of God should not be "authoritative," rather they should be servants, just as both the Lord and His disciples have instructed us.

One does not, indeed should not, obey servants. But if all are servants, then there is the freedom to place oneself in service under those who are more experienced than oneself, and under one another so that there is a serving of one another. Which is my understanding of Peter.

Then it’s no longer a matter of imitating the hierarchies of human kingdoms/nations, or human societies. It’s no longer a matter of obedience to a human authority, which is the common understanding of Hebrews 13:17. It’s a matter of living a common life in Christ. Where eyes, hands, and feet work together, each with a part to play, under a common head. If there is truly a connection to the supernatural, that head would be Jesus Christ and ultimately God. Through the Holy Spirit. It all depends on whether walking by the Spirit has a supernatural meaning through the human spirit or a natural meaning through the human mind.

If I hadn’t experienced, or thought I experienced, what I did at Elden Hall, I would have the same opinion of Hebrews 13:17 as the majority in Christianity. Obedience to a hierarchy created by or connected to Jesus Christ in some way. And since it’s also my view that the Roman Catholic Church is the epitomization of Christianity, kind of like Lee’s view of Christianity as Catholicism and her Protestant daughters, I would now be a Catholic.

There must be elders, proper in every sense, and the rest of the saints should be "subject" to them. It is the same as in a family. Just because some parents are cruelly abusive, we don't annul the institution of the family. We still must exhort children to honor their parents, and to obey them.

1Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

In this translation (KJV), “office of Bishop” translates the Greek word episcope. It is the translation of the RSV, NRSV, and the two Catholic Bibles, the Douay and the NAB. The ESV translates it as “office of overseer”. The NKJV translates it as “position of bishop”. The NIV translates it as “overseer”. The NLT translates it as “elder” (revealing the view of the translator of a synonymy of terms). The GNB translates it as what the majority in Christianity are thinking, “church leader”. The majority in Christianity think in terms of hierarchy in connection with the Greek word episcope. In my view, the NIV gives the best translation of the word.

The translation of the Greek word proistemi as rule in 1Tim 3:4 in the KJV and Douay. That was the view of family at the time. Since the RSV, the majority of translations translate the word as manage. Closer to the meaning, but still not quite correct in my view. The word literally means to stand before or in front of. Neither ruling nor managing. Rather, leading. The Overseer should be proficient in leading his own family in the right direction. As evidence he will do the same thing in the ekklesia. In my view, in Christianity, the emphasis is on the wrong thing, leading to a wrong idea.

In my view, there does NOT have to be elders. It’s a natural result of a growth in life. I know, I know. The matter of laying on of hands on those who apparently haven’t even been in an ekklesia long enough for growth to take place. Yet look at the time of education necessary to become a simple Priest or a Protestant Pastor. Time is surely involved before the laying on of hands occurs in Christianity. I think that what is not being considered is that the New Testament writings, though all were written prior to the end of the first century, they weren’t written immediately after the first ekklesia was called out. Luke wrote his writings just prior to the death of Paul in Rome. Paul accomplished a great deal, that required the passing of some time, prior to his death. Not only does Luke write after a passage of time, but Paul himself writes about things as if he already has some experience of what he’s writing about.

Life is what the ekklesia is all about in my view. The life of God in Christ expressed on earth for all the world to see, and even heavenly beings to see. Why would God want to continue a war when it is said that Christ already won the war. Satan still wars. That is true. But the Bible says all it takes is a little resistance and he will flee. The war on the flesh? The Bible says that is a war that can be won simply by walking by the Spirit. In Christianity, that is the war that is being lost because of faith being in the wrong thing. And Satan doesn’t have to lift a finger.

A Bishop or overseer is NOT intended to be an institutional authority as it is in Christianity. Nor are elders. Yet that is the Traditional view. Including as it has become in the Recovery, according to what I’ve read here, and seen with my own eyes. If one wishes to honestly follow Christian Tradition, it must be in the historic sense, historic Christian Tradition being the most viable form of Tradition. And it is a road that will eventually lead to Rome. Certainly not to the Recovery, nor any other Protestant influenced Christian denomination.

In my view, there is a difference between reality as Tradition interprets it and reality as the Bible describes it. Innovative interpretations, common in Protestantism, just creates different Traditions each with their own history that are all connected to Protestant history beginning with Martin Luther, that is in turn connected to the history of the Western Church, and ultimately to an overt history that includes the idea of hierarchy with an authoritative leadership going back to the 4th century. The Recovery of Witness Lee being just one of the more recent innovative Protestant interpretative Traditions. And remarkably, Lee admitted the denominational character of the Recovery when he acknowledged the historic connection between the Recovery and the Reformation of Martin Luther.

PS:

I have never heard of these descriptions "doctrinal realist" and "doctrinal relativist,"

It’s hard to tell how much of my personal terminology is due to personal innovation, personal adaptation to my own situation through many of years of personal experience, and terminology a dictionary might describe. I’ve never heard of the term “topiq Natzi” before. But I can imagine what kind of experience might lead to the use of the terminology having had some experience in more than one Christian forum.

MacDuff